NationStates Jolt Archive

You're being an ass.

It's called Article 88, Contempt toward officials, Article 89, Disrespect toward superior commissioned officer. This includes insulting or disparaging anyone in the chain of command, which includes the President of the United States.

I also remember numerous unprosecuted violations of Article 94, Mutiny or Sedition (plenty of openly seditious talk during the Clinton Administration by many senior officers).

Oh, and they usually tack on Article 134, Conduct unbecoming of an officer
See, was that so hard?

You still fail though, as you provide examples of the wrong thing. Read the thread.

And oh my, asking for examples is being an ass, huh? I never knew. Oh well, I'm sure you can relate.

Gravlen, technically, no officer can...
Yup. Fail.

Pro-PC = "I should get offended by everything, but nobody should allowed to tell me I don't have a right to not be offended"


Quoted For A Good Point

"Anti-PC" = "I should get to call people 'niggers,' but nobody should be allowed to call me 'racist.'"

Pro-PC = "I should get offended by everything, but nobody should allowed to tell me I don't have a right to not be offended"

Ad hominem attacks do not become you.

No, I'm calling anyone who goes around calling Jews "kykes", homosexuals "faggots", slaps their female secretaries behind, etc. dipshits.

Man, you gotta calm down a little. Don't start acting like a liberal.

Man, you gotta calm down a little. Don't start acting like a liberal.

What the hell? You're acting like not spanking secretaries is letting the terrorists win or something.

Let's see if this works:

So, let's say we take The Nazz as an example. Boy, he really dislikes Bush, and he really dislikes Bush's policies.

So if the Nazz dislikes Guantanamo Bay, can he call Guantanamo Bay "politically correct"?

Sorry, it doesn't work.

Part of the problem is that I get yelled at for saying things I didn't even think were "bad".........like I am supposed to know that instead of calling a child paraplegic I am supposed to say "differently abled", it's not like I called him a handicap, or a cripple, or disabled, or anything else that I can totally see as jerky..........


Those are bad now? Damn I need a newsletter sent out once in a while to notify me of these things

Pro-PC = "I should get offended by everything, but nobody should allowed to tell me I don't have a right to not be offended"

Hold on, I'm sorting out the triple-negative...


Ad hominem attacks do not become you.
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument or claim.

Seeing as how I was attacking the "anti-PC" stance, and not a person at all, I'd like to offer you a moist towelette to help you clean that egg off your face.

*tries to wave the stink away and fails*

You need to shove a mint up your ass before you talk out of it. Especially when posting drunk as you seem to be doing here.

I don't drink.

Maybe you should try another form of argument, other than namecalling.

Pro-PC = "I should get offended by everything, but nobody should allowed to tell me I don't have a right to not be offended"

Ad hominem attacks do not become you.


Have you addressed this post yet? It's at the heart of what you seem to be opposed to.


I wonder if it has ever occurred to the opponents of political correctness, that in fact the point is not to limit free speech, but rather to foster THINKING before speaking? That in fact, political correctness is simply the derogatory term for 'not reacting in habitual, bigoted ways' for fear of facing public ridicule? That perhaps, it is important to teach people that certain actions, words, or mannerisms are not simply offensive, but also perpetrate inequality and foster hatred among human beings? That really, when it comes down to it, any inconvenience a person might feel in being constrained to a sort of social politeness he or she may or may not actually be comfortable with, is offset by the fact that at least they are sparing many others the discomfort of being subjected to their idiocy?

Very little 'political correctness' is legislated. Unless you honestly believe that is the reason for things like human rights legislation, modernisation of sexual assault/rape laws etc. In which case, I could not fathom how you could oppose such a thing.

Let's see if this works:

So, let's say we take The Nazz as an example. Boy, he really dislikes Bush, and he really dislikes Bush's policies.

So if the Nazz dislikes Guantanamo Bay, can he call Guantanamo Bay "politically correct"?

Sorry, it doesn't work.

*tries to wave the stink away and fails*

You need to shove a mint up your ass before you talk out of it. Especially when posting drunk as you seem to be doing here.

Hold on, I'm sorting out the triple-negative...


An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument or claim.

Seeing as how I was attacking the "anti-PC" stance, and not a person at all, I'd like to offer you a moist towelette to help you clean that egg off your face.

Okay, so you targeted an opinion instead of a person.

Okay, so you targeted an opinion instead of a person.

I do believe that's called "debate"

Okay, so you targeted an opinion instead of a person.

...wouldn't that be "debating"? :confused:

Okay, so you targeted an opinion instead of a person.
Right.

So.

Not "ad hominem." By definition.

That's okay, though, you can go back to trying to insult me (which, by the way, is sliding towards an actual ad hominem) instead of addressing the opinions/ideas/arguments on the thread.

Because the taste of hypocrisies goes great with my morning coffee!

Right.

So.

Not "ad hominem." By definition.

That's okay, though, you can go back to trying to insult me (which, by the way, is sliding towards an actual ad hominem) instead of addressing the opinions/ideas/arguments on the thread.

Because the taste of hypocrisies goes great with my morning coffee!

Actually, I wasn't insulting you. Calling you out on an unsupported argument designed to demonize your opponent is hardly a flame.

Quoted For A Good Point

Really? Where has anyone said that we have a right not to be offended? are you saying that when someone is offended that they shouldn't speak up about it? If not, then I think you or Zarakon need to clarify.

Do people need to grow a thicker skin and not allow idiots to upset them so easily? Yes, I think that would be nice. Some people are overly sensitive, that is for sure. Does that make it okay to call my disabled sister a 'retard' in front of me or her? You sure have the right to do it, but you don't have a right not to hear what I think about it.

'Pro-PC' people are doing the same thing pro-bigotry people are doing which is in saying that they have a right to speak their mind. 'pro-PC' people just don't look like assholes when doing it. In fact, I think it's pretty noble for a person to try to defend themselves or especially another when attacked by offensive language.

Actually, I wasn't insulting you. Calling you out on an unsupported argument designed to demonize your opponent is hardly a flame.
Good thing I didn't call it a flame.

You (incorrectly) said I was employing an ad hominem attack. Feel free to apologize for your error whenever you are ready.

Pedantic bitch ain't she?

Oh,shit, not PC - erm - This woman appears to be suffering from an anal retentive complex regarding syntax and ancient latin in reference to its being used as an insult. Also, she appears to be 'personality challenged', retaining aspects of the canine family rather than that of Homo Sapiens.

I suggest saving your humor for those that are...you know...good at it.

Pedantic bitch ain't she?

Oh,shit, not PC - erm - This woman appears to be suffering from an anal retentive complex regarding syntax and ancient latin in reference to its being used as an insult. Also, she appears to be 'personality challenged', retaining aspects of the canine family rather than that of Homo Sapiens.
Excellent work!

See, THIS is an example of an ad hominem. The individual in question chooses to personally attack the INDIVIDUAL making a statement or argument, rather than addressing the ideas that are being discussed.

Thanks, Wiggles! Couldn't have done it better myself.

Do people need to grow a thicker skin and not allow idiots to upset them so easily? Yes, I think that would be nice. Some people are overly sensitive, that is for sure. Does that make it okay to call my disabled sister a 'retard' in front of me or her? You sure have the right to do it, but you don't have a right not to hear what I think about it.



Part of the problem is that those who support PC don't seem to take into account the intention behind the use of a word. Someone may not be up to date with the correct words to use but that doesnt mean they are using them in an attempt to be offensive.

Part of the problem is that those who support PC don't seem to take into account the intention behind the use of a word. Someone may not be up to date with the correct words to use but that doesnt mean they are using them in an attempt to be offensive.

painting a broad brush aren't you? The main thrust of the PC movement has always been, to put it simply "hey, don't be a dick". Which is to say, not only to avoid being intentionally rude, but also be mindful of what you're saying and the context it has.

Yeah, some take it overboard and insist on "differently abled" rather than "handicapped", and this may well take it so far, but for the most of us, it's simply a method of trying to get people to realize that ****** kike and fag are words that some folks tend to take offense to and hey, maybe we should be mindful of that.

Part of the problem is that those who support PC don't seem to take into account the intention behind the use of a word. Someone may not be up to date with the correct words to use but that doesnt mean they are using them in an attempt to be offensive.
And the best way for them to learn their mistake is for somebody to inform them that a word is offensive.

People are usually pretty good at picking up on tone. If somebody calls my brother a "retard," it's easy for me to tell if they are trying to be insulting or just are completely clueless, because I can use context to understand their meaning.

I've had people ask me if my brother is retarded, and I could tell that they were not intending to be remotely insulting. I politely corrected their mistake.

I've also had people call my brother retarded, and it was obvious they were being insulting on purpose. I'm not polite to such people.

painting a broad brush aren't you? The main thrust of the PC movement has always been, to put it simply "hey, don't be a dick". Which is to say, not only to avoid being intentionally rude, but also be mindful of what you're saying and the context it has.

Yeah, some take it overboard and insist on "differently abled" rather than "handicapped", and this may well take it so far, but for the most of us, it's simply a method of trying to get people to realize that ****** kike and fag are words that some folks tend to take offense to and hey, maybe we should be mindful of that.

Yeah you're right I should have re-worded my post to avoid painting with such a broad brush. What I should have said is that some people within the supporters of PC are overly aggressive when dealing with those who use offensive terms unintentionally. They bring down their own group as a result and make it harder to educate people on the correct way to deal with others

Sorry for the generalisation. It was unintended

And the best way for them to learn their mistake is for somebody to inform them that a word is offensive.

People are usually pretty good at picking up on tone. If somebody calls my brother a "retard," it's easy for me to tell if they are trying to be insulting or just are completely clueless, because I can use context to understand their meaning.

I've had people ask me if my brother is retarded, and I could tell that they were not intending to be remotely insulting. I politely corrected their mistake.

I've also had people call my brother retarded, and it was obvious they were being insulting on purpose. I'm not polite to such people.

The bolded word is the bit which changes everything. It ties in with how i've replied to others.

Yeah you're right I should have re-worded my post to avoid painting with such a broad brush. What I should have said is that some people within the supporters of PC are overly aggressive when dealing with those who use offensive terms unintentionally. They bring down their own group as a result and make it harder to educate people on the correct way to deal with others

Sorry for the generalisation. It was unintended

So then is this a case where the 'anti-PC' person needs to 'grow a thicker skin', brush off the person that is overly aggressive to them about a word they meant to use innocently (if they won't accept the apology/explanation), and get on with their life?

So then is this a case where the 'anti-PC' person needs to 'grow a thicker skin', brush off the person that is overly aggressive to them about a word they meant to use innocently, and get on with their life?

No you're putting words in my mouth. This is the case where the PC person needs to address their communication skills. You're making assumptions about my position on the issue i think

No you're putting words in my mouth. This is the case where the PC person needs to address their communication skills. You're making assumptions about my position on the issue i think

I don't think he was attacking you but rather the canned response by the anti-PC crowd.

Which is to say the typical response is that PC folks should "grow a thicker skin" and "deal with it". Funny how they never seem to apply that logic to themselves and decide they should "grow a thicker skin" and "deal with it" if they're bother by being told it's not polite to call someone a ******.

Which is the main problem with the thrust of the anti-PC movement, and its greatest hypocracy "you should just deal with me being a dick, but I don't want to hear you tell me I'm being a dick"

I don't think he was attacking you but rather the canned response by the anti-PC crowd.


Me dumb :p Apologies

Wow...it's getting hot in here.

So let's take off our clothes...

Wait, sorry, wrong line.

What the hell? You're acting like not spanking secretaries is letting the terrorists win or something.

I have a secretary and I can assure you that I do not slap her bottom. However, I do not see life as a matter or who has power and all that bullcrap. If a secretary and a manager want to have an affair, well then so what? Anyone that says this is wrong is just anti-love and a feminist.

As far as calling jews "kykes" and gays "faggots", so what? I use those words as an expression of my distaste for PC language. It does not mean anything other than that. The important thing is not the words that a man uses but the meaning that he is intending to express. Otherwise you can get lost in a world of connotations and insinuations that just makes communication very prone to error.

As an example, my wife is a teacher and she is not working with children this summer, she is instead taking college classes. She told her colleague that this will be the first summer that she does not need to work with children since she has been a teacher. Her colleague replied that she "Would not know that feeling because she was taking classes at college."

The teacher was reading into the statement and there was a communication error that resulted. The colleague read into the statement because she was illogical and fell prey to the vice of insinuation and connotation. The colleague read too much into the statement and understood the statement to mean

What I do is let my adjectives express good or bad and let my noun terms express an object. I do not allow for connotation and insinuation. Thus if a Black is called a ******. I see that as equal to a Black being called a Black and a ****** being called a ******. If someone said that "Joe is a nice ******"
I would see that as meaning that Joe is a nice black guy.

I do not buy into the whole slur thing. I espescially do not buy into the idea of looking down at folks who use words that the PC folks consider offensive.

Here is why, PC folks like any unchecked human institution seeks to amass power unto itself. Therefore it can never consider a battle won. It is for this reason that once the PCs got people to think saying "******" is bad they said that folks should call the blacks "negroes" or "Coloreds". So people did that out of wanting to be polite which is a nice enough reason. If things would have stopped there, then the PCs could have felt good about promoting etiquette. Yet we get some English Literature grad students that want to have a thesis idea so they start exploring ideas of connotation (which is pretty shaky ground as I hopefully briefly explained in my example using my wife's discussion with a colleague) and other radicals want to make a name for themselves in the PC movement so they start saying that "Negro" and "Colored" is offensive. Then the cycle repeats itself.

In reaction to this I am trying to lead by example and use earlier acceptable language. As sort of an "up yours" among radical PC folks I use terms like ******, but around ordinary folks I use colored and negro. The reason why I do not use "******" too much is that I am not 100% sure that it was ever a nice way to refer to blacks and I do want to be generally polite.

No you're putting words in my mouth. This is the case where the PC person needs to address their communication skills. You're making assumptions about my position on the issue i think

I did no such thing, but apologize if I was unclear. Let's let a better wordsmith have a shot at it:

I don't think he was attacking you but rather the canned response by the anti-PC crowd.

Which is to say the typical response is that PC folks should "grow a thicker skin" and "deal with it". Funny how they never seem to apply that logic to themselves and decide they should "grow a thicker skin" and "deal with it" if they're bother by being told it's not polite to call someone a ******.

Which is the main problem with the thrust of the anti-PC movement, and its greatest hypocracy "you should just deal with me being a dick, but I don't want to hear you tell me I'm being a dick"

Thank you sir.

I did no such thing, but apologize if I was unclear. Let's let a better wordsmith have a shot at it:



Thank you sir.

My mistake. :)

Wow...it's getting hot in here.

So let's take off our clothes...

Wait, sorry, wrong line.

What's wrong with it? I feel so free this way. Hmmm, coworkers seem to be a bit shocked though.

Wow...it's getting hot in here.

So let's take off our clothes...

Wait, sorry, wrong line.

And yet it still sounds like a great idea :p

Wow...it's getting hot in here.

So let's take off our clothes...


I'll take off Sumamba's clothes. And then I'll put on yours, Neese. You know.

now it's getting sweaty in here.

It's an American thing, mostly.

The UK?...

I've had people ask me if my brother is retarded, and I could tell that they were not intending to be remotely insulting. I politely corrected their mistake.


Umm...is he mentally retarded, or does he have autism or some condition where people just assume him to be retarded?

I have a secretary and I can assure you that I do not slap her bottom. However, I do not see life as a matter or who has power and all that bullcrap. If a secretary and a manager want to have an affair, well then so what? Anyone that says this is wrong is just anti-love and a feminist.

Last time I checked, the vast majority of feminists are NOT against sex or love.

Okay. Here's my opinion on political correctness:

You have no right not to be offended. Period.

I'm not a racist/sexist/other-ist person. I just think terms like "differently-abled" are silly. The worst part is the people who act like the mandatory term for all black people is "african-american". Not all black people are from Africa, not all white people are from some place other then Africa. It's a generalized term, which is somewhat stupid.

I think plenty of people have FAR to thin a skin.

There has been a sort of evolution when it comes to the names applied to, or responded to by minorities. I don't think we should bewail that fact, and get angry that minorities are changing their minds too much. It's a psychological and social change going on too, and it's important.

I'll just use the example of aboriginal people in Canada. First, we were Indians, and in many legal senses, that is STILL our legal description. The name was given TO us, we had no say in it. In fact, our tribal names were stripped from us, and anglicised, and then we were lumped in all together under this umbrella term. We were also called 'native', and 'being native' was a derogatory term. 'Going native' was even worse.

During the 60s and 70s, there was a Red Power movement, begun in the US. The term 'Native American' began to creep as the Census Bureau switched things up a bit, and as we sought to discard the term 'Indian'. The term began as one that was deemed more respectful, and less dehumanising. AIM preferred the term 'American Indian', and there was controversy amongst aboriginal peoples as to what we should be calling ourselves. But that dialogue was important...it was about OUR name, not how we were named by others.

Since then, the terms 'aboriginal' and 'indigenous' have been used, discarded, reused, objected to, and so on. Scholars jump back and forth in their use, unsure, because there is really no consensus on the issue.

Then in the 80s, the term 'First Nations' arose. This term was created by aboriginal and non-aboriginals alike, and there was finally some consensus. First Nations would refer to what were previously 'Indian bands', Inuit to the various northern peoples, and Metis for those descended from Europeans and First Nations. All under the umbrella term 'aboriginal'.

We prefer to be referred to by our own names, Cree (Nehiyaw), Ojibwe(Anishnabe) etc, and more and more that is how we identify, rather than 'First Nations'. Still, a blanket term IS needed, rather than reciting off every tribal name in existence :D

The point is, all of this happened not because people were just 'getting offended' by the terms already in use, but rather because we as a people, and Canada as a society, was attempting to revise our relationship with one another. The terms will likely change again, as the relationship evolves. It's not PC bullshit, it's progress...and frankly, I applaud it.

There has been a sort of evolution when it comes to the names applied to, or responded to by minorities. I don't think we should bewail that fact, and get angry that minorities are changing their minds too much. It's a psychological and social change going on too, and it's important.

I'll just use the example of aboriginal people in Canada. First, we were Indians, and in many legal senses, that is STILL our legal description. The name was given TO us, we had no say in it. In fact, our tribal names were stripped from us, and anglicised, and then we were lumped in all together under this umbrella term. We were also called 'native', and 'being native' was a derogatory term. 'Going native' was even worse.

During the 60s and 70s, there was a Red Power movement, begun in the US. The term 'Native American' began to creep as the Census Bureau switched things up a bit, and as we sought to discard the term 'Indian'. The term began as one that was deemed more respectful, and less dehumanising. AIM preferred the term 'American Indian', and there was controversy amongst aboriginal peoples as to what we should be calling ourselves. But that dialogue was important...it was about OUR name, not how we were named by others.

Since then, the terms 'aboriginal' and 'indigenous' have been used, discarded, reused, objected to, and so on. Scholars jump back and forth in their use, unsure, because there is really no consensus on the issue.

Then in the 80s, the term 'First Nations' arose. This term was created by aboriginal and non-aboriginals alike, and there was finally some consensus. First Nations would refer to what were previously 'Indian bands', Inuit to the various northern peoples, and Metis for those descended from Europeans and First Nations. All under the umbrella term 'aboriginal'.

We prefer to be referred to by our own names, Cree (Nehiyaw), Ojibwe(Anishnabe) etc, and more and more that is how we identify, rather than 'First Nations'. Still, a blanket term IS needed, rather than reciting off every tribal name in existence :D

The point is, all of this happened not because people were just 'getting offended' by the terms already in use, but rather because we as a people, and Canada as a society, was attempting to revise our relationship with one another. The terms will likely change again, as the relationship evolves. It's not PC bullshit, it's progress...and frankly, I applaud it.

We went through this with blacks here in the US.

Come to think of it, we've had multiple terms for what you call "First Nations" down here in the US.

Read the first Europeans' letters, and you see references to "savages".

We went through this with blacks here in the US. Yup...another good example. It may be confusing, but too many people don't consider WHY it's happening, and just react with anger.

Come to think of it, we've had multiple terms for what you call "First Nations" down here in the US.

Read the first Europeans' letters, and you see references to "savages".Yes, though the US natives tend to stick with 'Native American', and First Nations was never a term accepted in the US.

The point is, the original names ARE offensive, because they were created in a time when the people being named were seen as less than human, whether we're discussing black people, Chinese, handicapped or otherwise. A change was needed, as our societies changed, and less people really did consider others to be subhuman. Sure it was uncomfortable for those who held onto the old perceptions, but...hey, tough.

Now, yes, sometimes it gets silly. Sometimes the names come up with so as to not 'offend' aren't even devised by the group that is being labelled. Nonetheless, for the most part, the names we use are created out of an on-going dialogue.

We're still going through it with black people obviously by looking at this very thread, just as black people are still arguing amongst themselves about it.

Black, colored, negro, african-american. Of those four, I usually use the term 'black' as does the mainstream media. Probably because the media pays attention to the most socially acceptable terms and use them to avoid controvery in most cases.

Neesika, you're PC.

Neesika, you're PC.

Particularly Cuddly.

Neesika, you're PC.

Wait a--- oh come on now, you don't mean you don't like me!? I'm so intensely likeable!

We're still going through it with black people obviously by looking at this very thread, just as black people are still arguing amongst themselves about it.

Black, colored, negro, african-american. Of those four, I usually use the term 'black' as does the mainstream media. Probably because the media pays attention to the most socially acceptable terms and use them to avoid controvery in most cases.

In official Federal Government correspondence, you're never supposed to use anything except African-American for black people, even if they aren't from Africa or America.

In official Federal Government correspondence, you're never supposed to use anything except African-American for black people, even if they aren't from Africa or America.

These things take time to change. We are still 'Indians' under the 'Indian Act', even though we are 'aboriginal' according to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Neesika, you're PC.

Personal computer?
Partly cloudy?
Partying chinaman?
Panting concubine?

...

Oh and
*Taps foot while waiting*

Panting concubine?


This is my favourite.

In official Federal Government correspondence, you're never supposed to use anything except African-American for black people, even if they aren't from Africa or America.

If that is true, and I have no reason to believe anything you say, I wouldn't be surprised. The federal govt. is pretty backwards on many things.

Personal computer?
Partly cloudy?
Partying chinaman?
Panting concubine?

...

Oh and
*Taps foot while waiting*

The title told me to call things that I don't like PC. I'm just doin what I've been told.

This is my favourite.

mine too

I retract my weak one for the far superior one

Wait a--- oh come on now, you don't mean you don't like me!? I'm so intensely likeable!

I'm just callin 'em like I see 'em. :)

I'm just callin 'em like I see 'em. :)

I think I'll slit my wrists now.

Or maybe I'll just say, "I know you are, but what am I":p

I think I'll slit my wrists now.

Or maybe I'll just say, "I know you are, but what am I":p

What? as an advocate of political correctness, I thought you were supposed to cry and explain that you have a right not to be offended!

If that is true, and I have no reason to believe anything you say, I wouldn't be surprised. The federal govt. is pretty backwards on many things.

They actually think that it is progressive, and the most uplifting and least oppressive categorization.

You'll see it on official Federal forms that ask you to choose your race:

American Indian or Alaska Native;
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black or African American;
and White

The Census forms allow "Black" in place of African-American if the latter offends. They also break out the Pacific Islander from Asian.

On most government forms, if you're from anywhere in Iran, across India, up to Mongolia, out to Japan, and down across Polynesia, you're all the same "race" as far as the Federal government is concerned.

They actually think that it is progressive, and the most uplifting and least oppressive categorization.

You'll see it on official Federal forms that ask you to choose your race:

American Indian or Alaska Native;
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black or African American;
and White

The Census forms allow "Black" in place of African-American if the latter offends. They also break out the Pacific Islander from Asian.

On most government forms, if you're from anywhere in Iran, across India, up to Mongolia, out to Japan, and down across Polynesia, you're all the same "race" as far as the Federal government is concerned.

It's better than what they put next to race on my wifes birth certificate: 'Brown'

:p

I was being serious.:( :p

It's better than what they put next to race on my wifes birth certificate: 'Brown'

I find any racial identifier ridiculous.

I was being serious.:( :p

Like I give a shit.

I find any racial identifier ridiculous.

Wheat from chaff and all that.

I blame the liberal fifth column anti-American pro-terrorist multicultural moral relativistic PC conspiracy for why I can't seem to find any decent drugs lately.

Like I give a shit.

The :p was to signify a joke.

I blame the liberal fifth column anti-American pro-terrorist multicultural moral relativistic PC conspiracy for why I can't seem to find any decent drugs lately.

If I get time-warped I'm going to cut the tubes that go to jolt. That'll show em.

The :p was to signify a joke.

See my previous post. It stands.

See my previous post. It stands.

Sounds like someone is angry that they misunderstood.

Political correctness has a bad rap. It is apparently responsible for such evils as turning men into 'womenly men (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12759796&postcount=89)', turning women into lesbians, making it uncool to use racial slurs (even when we all know those jokes are true), and turning kids (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=12756896#post12756896) into fat, idiotic wimps. It's all a left-wing plot of course, and we all hate it.

So when you want to bitch and moan about something, just blame it on the PC movement! Then everyone will ignore the stupid things you are saying, and join you in bashing everything PC!

Oh, and I dedicate this thread to Eutrusca, PC's #1 enemy.

I don't think you actually have any idea at all what the greviences are with political correctness. It just seemes as if you wish so much that it was no more then an excuse to be racist or bigotted in some way. What a huge strawman.

Don't like something? Call it PC!
Guess what a woman just did on the TV.:rolleyes:

Honestly, people coming out with 'PC this' and 'PC that' when it's something completely unrelated and used as a strawman annoys me no end.

I don't think you actually have any idea at all what the greviences are with political correctness. It just seemes as if you wish so much that it was no more then an excuse to be racist or bigotted in some way. What a huge strawman.

please enlighten us.

I don't think you actually have any idea at all what the greviences are with political correctness. It just seemes as if you wish so much that it was no more then an excuse to be racist or bigotted in some way. What a huge strawman.

Yes. The anti-PC crowd have constructed a huge strawman and labelled it 'Mr. PC'. They routinely beat it with sticks and congratulate one another on their amazing prowess.

Sounds like someone is angry that they misunderstood.

More like, someone misunderstands their importance to me. On a level of 1 to 10, my interest in your opinion sits at about a 0.

More like, someone misunderstands their importance to me. On a level of 1 to 10, my interest in your opinion sits at about a 0.

Ouch, you really can get quite sensitive over jokes. Mommy is over there with your tissues and a hug.

Neesika, you're clearly one of the most PC posters on this board ;)

Neesika, you're clearly one of the most PC posters on this board ;)

Touchy feely, that's me.

My middle school was uber-PC. It was insane how PC it was. God, I hate that PC slice of Hell!

My sister, who just graduated from that PC factory, is also PC, like all the other PC students.

:mad:

My middle school was uber-PC. It was insane how PC it was. God, I hate that PC slice of Hell!

My sister, who just graduated from that PC factory, is also PC, like all the other PC students.

:mad:

I'd love if one of you ranters would explain what 'being PC' actually translated into, in your minds.

I blame the liberal fifth column anti-American pro-terrorist multicultural moral relativistic PC conspiracy for why I can't seem to find any decent drugs lately.

Damn right. Them and their PC gestapo tactics. :p

Twenty-two pages. Has anyone actually levelled a real argument, or outline of what they see is a problem with political correctness? Other than "Um, well sometimes people take it too far AND IT JUST PISSES ME OFF!"

As would I. As far as I can ever tell, it just involves being polite.

Truly horrifying. So if I open doors for people, or refrain from calling that lady (in the express line counting out her pennies) a douchebag...I'm PC?

Someone help me!

I'd love if one of you ranters would explain what 'being PC' actually translated into, in your minds.

As would I. As far as I can ever tell, it just involves being polite.

...or refrain from calling that lady (in the express line counting out her pennies) a douchebag...I'm PC?

Probably it means looking at you weird when you call the woman a "Kyke."

Yup. Fail.

Wuv you. :fluffle:

You know what this would be a good time for? Tom Lehrer.

:eek:
I f*ckin' LOVE YOU!

*mega-BOW*

Political correctness is why I don't get laid.

There is so much magic and beauty intertwined with this particular statement.
:)

Truly horrifying. So if I open doors for people, or refrain from calling that lady (in the express line counting out her pennies) a douchebag...I'm PC?

Someone help me!


Or hitting her in the back of the head with a soup can? lol

Are you KIDDING? Queen of the universe + drugs could lead her to accidentally breaking the stars, forcing us to shring to microsize and begin picking up objects with a magic sticky ball to increase its size to the level necessary to remake individual stars.

It'd be real life Katamari rolling!!! ^_^

Right. Like I said, odd :D

I'd love if one of you ranters would explain what 'being PC' actually translated into, in your minds.

Here's a US embodiment: conjuring up some imaginary right not to be "offended", and then using it to trump the exercise of free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment on the ground that such speech is "offensive" to some minority or other.

Example: various department stores ordering their employees to say "Happy Holidays" rather than "Merry Christmas".

Example: public schools turning Christmas observations into "Winter Festivals", banning Christmas carols, banning Christmas cookies, banning red and green clothing, etc.

Example: Don Imus getting canned for "offending" people who use the very same language, and worse, on a regular basis.

Example: intimidation of anyone who voices opposition to homosexuality and/or other deviant lifestyle choices (not as bad as the insanity that apparently now reigns in Sweden, though).

Example: leftist twerps shouting down anyone to the right of center who attempts to speak on college campuses, e.g., Columbia University punks disrupting an appearance by Minutemen spokesmen.

Example: attempting to emasculate the English language by using "their" as a singular pronoun instead of "his", imposing "humankind" in place of "man" or "mankind," using "chairperson," or worse, "chair" (as if the designee were an inanimate object) instead of "chairman."

Example: attempting to impose the latest fads in ethnic and geographic designations, such as replacing "Eskimo" with "Inuit" ("Inuit Pies", anyone?), changing "Oriental" to "Asian" (which is clearly not the same in scope), imposing "African-American" instead of "Afro-American," which replaced "black", which replaced "negro" yada yada yada.

Example: replacing "A.D." with "C.E." in historical dating.

I could list more, but it's getting late and I have to get back to my meeting with Ann Coulter so we can complete our plans to create a right-wing imperium in the United States ;)

Example: public schools turning Christmas observations into "Winter Festivals", banning Christmas carols, banning Christmas cookies, banning red and green clothing, etc.


This is just my input, but might the clothing bans be gang-related? In my community, just before New Year's, there is much animosity between the Christmas Elves and Santa's Helpers gangs… the torn down mistletoe… the unscrewed tree light bulbs… it's all too much… :(:mp5:

It's not even as though green and red actually have anything to do with Christianity at all, anyway… and who would ban Christmas cookies? Who cares if they are distantly related to some religion or other? I mean, come on people. They're cookies! Eat them anyway!


Example: attempting to emasculate the English language by using "their" as a singular pronoun instead of "his", imposing "humankind" in place of "man" or "mankind," using "chairperson," or worse, "chair" (as if the designee were an inanimate object) instead of "chairman."


Well… administrators face being treated as objects eventually anyway. ;)

Example: various department stores ordering their employees to say "Happy Holidays" rather than "Merry Christmas".

That's called appealing to as broad a target demographic as possible to maximize sales.


Example: Don Imus getting canned for "offending" people who use the very same language, and worse, on a regular basis.

Imagine that, a media outlet firing people for pissing off their target market. That's almost as unheard of as someone getting fired for screaming at the customers.

Example: intimidation of anyone who voices opposition to homosexuality and/or other deviant lifestyle choices (not as bad as the insanity that apparently now reigns in Sweden, though).

Awww, do you feel intimidated?

Example: attempting to emasculate the English language by using "their" as a singular pronoun instead of "his", imposing "humankind" in place of "man" or "mankind," using "chairperson," or worse, "chair" (as if the designee were an inanimate object) instead of "chairman."

"Chairman" is more accurate. Sorry if that bugs you, Mr Men's-Only-Club.


Example: attempting to impose the latest fads in ethnic and geographic designations, such as replacing "Eskimo" with "Inuit" ("Inuit Pies", anyone?), changing "Oriental" to "Asian" (which is clearly not the same in scope), imposing "African-American" instead of "Afro-American," which replaced "black", which replaced "negro" yada yada yada.

Yeah it really sucks that names of people and places change. Language changes. That's bad! I vote we all start talking in ancient Indo-European, what do you say?

That was fun New Mitanni, why don't you post some more humorously ignorant drivel.

Thank you for fleshing out my OP with pretty much every statement you've made here. Don't like something? Well that makes it PC!

However, before I get into this, I would like to thank you for taking the time to actual list some specific gripes with what you see 'PC' is.
Here's a US embodiment: conjuring up some imaginary right not to be "offended", and then using it to trump the exercise of free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment on the ground that such speech is "offensive" to some minority or other. Actually, it's not about a 'right not to be offended'. It's about various rights. The right to be treated like a human being. The right not to be discriminated against. The right to offer up alternatives to traditional, bigoted references to oneself. Etc.

Example: various department stores ordering their employees to say "Happy Holidays" rather than "Merry Christmas". GT made a good point on this already, but I'd like to add to it. Perhaps you truly ARE unaware, that despite the fact non-Christians may not celebrate Christmas, they do nontheless get a holiday out of it, just like anyone else. Especially if they have children in school. So saying, "Happy Holidays" frankly makes sense.

Does it make sense to greet every person who walks through the door with 'Merry Christmas' even KNOWING that there are going to be some, (or many, depending on where the store is located) that do not observe Christmas? Do you enjoy being deliberately alienating? Well, you have that right, as an individual.

As an employee, however, it is NOT in the best interests of your employers that you alienate even a small segment of the population (or, again, a large one, depending). So your 'right to free speech' goes out the window when a private corporation, (who is not bound by the the first amendment, or the section 2b right to expression ) tell you, the employee, to say something else.

Guess what? Alienating customers = bad for business.
Being 'politically correct' and trying to be as inclusive as possible = good for business.

Example: public schools turning Christmas observations into "Winter Festivals", banning Christmas carols, banning Christmas [I]cookies, banning red and green clothing, etc. Two words. Public education.

It might not have been an issue a few decades ago, when the majority of students (and people paying education taxes) were Christians. But the times, they are a changing, and the public education system is a secular one.

In Canada, we have a separate, publicly funded Catholic system. I think it's ridiculous, but there it is, and we likely aren't going to get rid of it. We also have schools here and there within the regular public system that offer the 'Logos' program, which is a blended Christian program. Point being...if you really want your Christian child to have Christmas festivities etc, you choose a school that suits your needs.

Just like the rest of us choose schools that suit OUR needs. And one of those needs is NOT having a religion not our own shoved down our, or our children's throats.

Does it get taken too far? Perhaps, depending on how you look at it. But frankly, I think the 'outrage' has more to do with a long-seated sense of Christian entitlement that was well-based in demographics. Alas, the population is shifting, and what made sense before simply does not make sense now. Especially when the 'thing' in question is a tax-funded, secular system of education.

Example: Don Imus getting canned for "offending" people who use the very same language, and worse, on a regular basis. Can't speak to this, have no idea what you're referring to.

Example: intimidation of anyone who voices opposition to homosexuality and/or other deviant lifestyle choices (not as bad as the insanity that apparently now reigns in Sweden, though).Just look at the words you used. Homosexuality and/or other DEVIANT lifestyle choices.

You have used very perjorative language, that is meant to apply to homosexuality as well as other, unnamed 'bad things'. So you get called on it. Does that intimidate you?

Bigotry SHOULD be noted, and when you voice it, yeah, you SHOULD be taken to task. No one can stop you from being a bigot, but they CAN:

1) as an employer, can your ass if your behaviour is offensive, harassing, or out of step with the company policy

2) as an individual, exercise their own free speech and challenge your statements

3) as constituents, fans, or audience, decide that they don't like your attitude, and boycott you.

None of this is legislated. None of this is forced, or automatic. This is the PUBLIC, yes, even in the form of private corporations, reacting to shifting social trends that makes bigotry unacceptable. It seems that this irks some people, who would like to retain the status quo, where bigotry is A-OK.

I routinely tell racist jokes in certain company. Mostly about my own people, mind you. Oh, and blonde jokes. Love those. IN CERTAIN COMPANY. Because, by context, they can tell when I'm serious, and when I'm not...and don't assume I'm actually a self-hating Indian/woman. Would I think it appropriate to tell those same jokes in public? A big 'FUCK NO' pulled out of the box of 'obvious'.


Example: leftist twerps shouting down anyone to the right of center who attempts to speak on college campuses, e.g., Columbia University punks disrupting an appearance by Minutemen spokesmen. You cry about freedom of speech, and then turn around and say some people shouldn't have it?

The freedom of speech does not include a platform from which to shout it out to the world, unhindered. Not unless (in Canada) there is literally NO other way to get that message out.

Example: attempting to emasculate the English language
Emasculate...strip the masculine...yes. It makes no sense, in todays world, to automatically use the masculine pronouns.

by using "their" as a singular pronoun instead of "his",
Well that one irks me. It's just grammatically incorrect. It's not all that hard to say 'his or her' if the gender is unknown, or 'a person's' if you must.

imposing "humankind" in place of "man" or "mankind," using "chairperson," or worse, "chair" (as if the designee were an inanimate object) instead of "chairman." Oh no! Or...firefighter, instead of fireman! Or...police officer instead of policeman!

Yes. It has clearly made the English language unwieldy and nonsensical. Instead, saying things like, 'female policeman' or 'female chairman' would work MUCH better! And pointing out, as this does, that females are still in the strict minority in these positions is a GOOD thing, right?

Example: attempting to impose the latest fads in ethnic and geographic designations, such as replacing "Eskimo" with "Inuit" ("Inuit Pies", anyone?), changing "Oriental" to "Asian" (which is clearly not the same in scope), imposing "African-American" instead of "Afro-American," which replaced "black", which replaced "negro" yada yada yada. I've already addressed this in a former post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12765857&postcount=292).

Example: replacing "A.D." with "C.E." in historical dating. Yes well, when dealing with cultures that do not use the same calendar, coming up with an accepted frame of reference is just so obtuse I suppose.

I could list more, but it's getting late and I have to get back to my meeting with Ann Coulter so we can complete our plans to create a right-wing imperium in the United States ;)
:p

I could list more, but it's getting late and I have to get back to my meeting with Ann Coulter so we can complete our plans to create a right-wing imperium in the United States ;)

You know she's probably satire right?

You know she's probably satire right?

Ann Coulter?

Ann Coulter?

Yup. There's been a lot of speculation that she and Rush are just caricatures of conservative America.

Yup. There's been a lot of speculation that she and Rush are just caricatures of conservative America.

Really? That would honestly be something amazing. To create a persona that you actually lived like that...dedication. Imagine being SO hated by the people you actually support, and loved by the people you despise...

I don't believe it, but I would be beyond impressed if it were true.

Twenty-two pages. Has anyone actually levelled a real argument, or outline of what they see is a problem with political correctness? Other than "Um, well sometimes people take it too far AND IT JUST PISSES ME OFF!"
I'm still waiting for someone to accurately define "Politically correct".
Wuv you. :fluffle:
Wuv ya back big guy ;) :p :fluffle:

Oh, and Neesika went through the list in a very good way, but let me add:
conjuring up some imaginary right not to be "offended", and then using it to trump the exercise of free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment on the ground that such speech is "offensive" to some minority or other.
Common curtesy. Being polite.

Example: various department stores ordering their employees to say "Happy Holidays" rather than "Merry Christmas".
Capitalism.

Example: public schools turning Christmas observations into "Winter Festivals", banning Christmas carols, banning Christmas cookies, banning red and green clothing, etc.
Separation of church and state. Multiculturalism.

Example: Don Imus getting canned for "offending" people who use the very same language, and worse, on a regular basis.
Broadcast. Capitalism.

Example: intimidation of anyone who voices opposition to homosexuality and/or other deviant lifestyle choices (not as bad as the insanity that apparently now reigns in Sweden, though).
None of their business. "Deviant"? You're wrong about Sweden.

Example: leftist twerps shouting down anyone to the right of center who attempts to speak on college campuses, e.g., Columbia University punks disrupting an appearance by Minutemen spokesmen.
Free speech.

Example: attempting to emasculate the English language by using "their" as a singular pronoun instead of "his", imposing "humankind" in place of "man" or "mankind," using "chairperson," or worse, "chair" (as if the designee were an inanimate object) instead of "chairman."
Accuracy.

Example: attempting to impose the latest fads in ethnic and geographic designations, such as replacing "Eskimo" with "Inuit" ("Inuit Pies", anyone?), changing "Oriental" to "Asian" (which is clearly not the same in scope), imposing "African-American" instead of "Afro-American," which replaced "black", which replaced "negro" yada yada yada.
This is about as close to "political correct speech" as you have gotten.

Example: replacing "A.D." with "C.E." in historical dating.
Heard of it, never seen it used.

My middle school was uber-PC. It was insane how PC it was. God, I hate that PC slice of Hell!

My sister, who just graduated from that PC factory, is also PC, like all the other PC students.

:mad:

How so?

How so?

Hey point is that she doesn't like her middle school. Therefore she's calling it, and everything related to it, PC, as per the thread title

Conservatives are as politically correct as it gets.

Religion makes political correctness look like Wayne Brady.

*Dressed like a redneck*

Them PC librulz r allowin the illegal imm'grants to taek urr jerbz! [/IGNROANT_REDNECK_ANTI-IMM]
Hey why dont you shut the fuck up!

Hey why dont you shut the fuck up!

*Laughs uncontrollably*

Ah... I can't tell if you are anti-immigration or a n00b.

Yup. There's been a lot of speculation that she and Rush are just caricatures of conservative America.
I don't know about Rush, but as for Ann Coulter...

She went to Cornell University (hardly a bastion of conservatism) where she dated Bill Meyer, whom she stays in regular contact with to this day. The speculation about her tends to revolve around the idea that she and Meyer are "partners in crime" as it were.

While it may just be speculation, the way in which Ann Coulter takes every conservative position to its logical extreme just comes across as unrealistic.


As for Rush, I've had the misfortune of knowing people who act and think exactly like him.

Conservatives are as politically correct as it gets.

How so?

How so?

refer to title for jokes explanation.

This may be redundant, but oh well:

conjuring up some imaginary right not to be "offended", and then using it to trump the exercise of free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment on the ground that such speech is "offensive" to some minority or other.

I think people have the right not to have people verbally attacking them. And why is it that some people can't seem to go through their lives without using offensive language against minorities?

Example: various department stores ordering their employees to say "Happy Holidays" rather than "Merry Christmas".

Everyone in America is not a Christian. How would you feel if every store said "Happy Kwanzaa"? Kind of alienated?

Example: public schools turning Christmas observations into "Winter Festivals", banning Christmas carols, banning Christmas cookies, banning red and green clothing, etc.

I'll grant you, banning cookies and red and green clothing is a little extreme.

Example: Don Imus getting canned for "offending" people who use the very same language, and worse, on a regular basis.

I won't argue with this one.

Example: intimidation of anyone who voices opposition to homosexuality and/or other deviant lifestyle choices (not as bad as the insanity that apparently now reigns in Sweden, though).

I did not choose my "deviant lifestyle" anymore than you probably chose to be heterosexual. And I think I have the right not to be called a "faggot" by some sexually insecure dimwit who feels just so threatened by something that's none of his business to begin with.

Example: attempting to emasculate the English language by using "their" as a singular pronoun instead of "his", imposing "humankind" in place of "man" or "mankind," using "chairperson," or worse, "chair" (as if the designee were an inanimate object) instead of "chairman."


Should the chairman be referred to as chairman even if she's a woman?

Everyone in America is not a Christian. How would you feel if every store said "Happy Kwanzaa"? Kind of alienated?


Well, if I were an American, I wouldn't. Kwanzaa originated in California in 1967, didn't it? I admit that not every American is Californian… but wouldn't it be more awesome if they all were? :cool:

I don't know about Rush, but as for Ann Coulter...

She went to Cornell University (hardly a bastion of conservatism) where she dated Bill Meyer, whom she stays in regular contact with to this day. The speculation about her tends to revolve around the idea that she and Meyer are "partners in crime" as it were.

While it may just be speculation, the way in which Ann Coulter takes every conservative position to its logical extreme just comes across as unrealistic.



This is honestly the first I've ever heard of this...and the first time I've been even remotely intrigued by her.

This is honestly the first I've ever heard of this...and the first time I've been even remotely intrigued by her.

Yup. I don't despise her nearly as much now.

Like I said, though, it's only speculation. And even if it's true, there had to have been a point where she realized no one was getting it, but decided the money she was making was more important than her point.

This is honestly the first I've ever heard of this...and the first time I've been even remotely intrigued by her.

Yup. I don't despise her nearly as much now.

Yup. I don't despise her nearly as much now.

She fucked Meyer...that alone is hot :p

But I'm not about to start joining her fan club.

How so?

Perhaps it's an overcompensation for being anatomically incorrect?

This may have already been asked at some point in the thread (can't be bothered to read the whole thing) but what are peoples views on the use of politically incorrect terms and phrases by comedians such as Sarah Silverman, etc?

This may have already been asked at some point in the thread (can't be bothered to read the whole thing) but what are peoples views on the use of politically incorrect terms and phrases by comedians such as Sarah Silverman, etc?

I think the general idea behind that is "look at this stuff, it's completely stupid, laugh at it."

It's less using racial stereotypes to make a joke as pointing out that they should be jokes and anyone that actually takes them seriously and believes them should be pointed and laughed at.

I think the general idea behind that is "look at this stuff, it's completely stupid, laugh at it."

It's less using racial stereotypes to make a joke as pointing out that they should be jokes and anyone that actually takes them seriously and believes them should be pointed and laughed at.

But if used in everyday social settings with the same intent many people would frown upon it

But if used in everyday social settings with the same intent many people would frown upon it

Which is what I think the battle is. The comedians are trying showing how completely idiotic beliefs like that are, no matter who's saying them or where. These are people firmly in the "they're just words" category.

I don't know, Mencia described it better than I ever could.

Which is what I think the battle is. The comedians are trying showing how completely idiotic beliefs like that are, no matter who's saying them or where. These are people firmly in the "they're just words" category.

I don't know, Mencia described it better than I ever could.

So is it the stage and microphone which makes the major difference?

So is it the stage and microphone which makes the major difference?

Possibly, though I think it's more the atmosphere. They're at the performance to be entertained. People are more relaxed.

Again, though, I think part of the point is that is shouldn't matter who's saying it or where. These things should be treated like the idiotic jokes that they are, not taken seriously.

I'm thinking that it's not so much the microphone as it is the obviousness of the intent behind the joke.

Take the Imus example. He had a microphone and his job is to entertain but it wasn't so obvious to his angered listeners what his intent was if it as merely to make a joke of racism.

With Sarah Silverman it looks as if Telesha is indeed correct. It was funny, one day we on NS were talking about how saying "that's so gay" as a derogatory way of saying something is stupid, is just dickish. It was that night or the next night on the Sarah Silverman Show where she was with her gay friends and was talking about something saying it was so gay and then said, "oh sorry guys I didn't mean 'gay' as in homosexual but rather as in 'stupid'." to point out how offensive it can be it looks like right? btw I probably did a horrible paraphrasing and screwed the joke up completely.

btw I probably did a horrible paraphrasing and screwed the joke up completely.

You're so gay.

You're so gay.

but am I gay enough?

It was that night or the next night on the Sarah Silverman Show where she was with her gay friends and was talking about something saying it was so gay and then said, "oh sorry guys I didn't mean 'gay' as in homosexual but rather as in 'stupid'." to point out how offensive it can be it looks like right? btw I probably did a horrible paraphrasing and screwed the joke up completely.

Yeah saw a few clips of hers today and in one of which she says "Thats so retarded ....(pause)....and by retarded I meant they can do anything"

I'm still confused a little as to where the line is drawn in the case of comedians though. Its something i'll have to think about

but am I gay enough?

No one can ever be gay enough.

Oh, and my messages are bouncing again.

Yeah saw a few clips of hers today and in one of which she says "Thats so retarded ....(pause)....and by retarded I meant they can do anything"

I'm still confused a little as to where the line is drawn in the case of comedians though. Its something i'll have to think about

I don't think the line is ever goin to be clear.

Thank you for fleshing out my OP with pretty much every statement you've made here. Don't like something? Well that makes it PC!

However, before I get into this, I would like to thank you for taking the time to actual list some specific gripes with what you see 'PC' is.

Of course :)


Actually, it's not about a 'right not to be offended'. It's about various rights. The right to be treated like a human being. The right not to be discriminated against. The right to offer up alternatives to traditional, bigoted references to oneself. Etc.

It all boils down to the same thing, no matter how you frame it. The fact is, at least in the US context, there are no “rights” to be “treated like a human being” or “offer up alternatives to traditional, bigoted references to oneself,” let alone such a “right” that overrides the 1st Amendment right of free speech. And as for a “right not to be discriminated against,” the only discrimination going on is against those who refuse to enunciate PC shibboleths and otherwise tow the PC party line.

Those who object to “traditional, bigoted references to oneself” have the following options:
1) ignore them (“sticks and stones”);
2) respond to them in a reasoned manner;
3) adopt the references, thereby neutralizing them.
They do not have the “right” to tell me what and what not to say, and I am not about to give them such a “right”.


GT made a good point on this already, but I'd like to add to it. Perhaps you truly ARE unaware, that despite the fact non-Christians may not celebrate Christmas, they do nontheless get a holiday out of it, just like anyone else. Especially if they have children in school. So saying, "Happy Holidays" frankly makes sense.

Does it make sense to greet every person who walks through the door with 'Merry Christmas' even KNOWING that there are going to be some, (or many, depending on where the store is located) that do not observe Christmas? Do you enjoy being deliberately alienating? Well, you have that right, as an individual.

It makes perfect sense to specially and specifically recognize the beliefs and traditions of the majority, and that majority is Christian. There is no “alienation” involved in making non-Christian minorities (or minorities in general, for that matter) recognize and accept the fact that they are minorities. Those poor sensitive non-Christian souls who feel “alienated” when someone wishes them a Merry Christmas need to get over themselves, accept reality and take the greeting in the spirit in which it was offered. (And as an aside: we Christians believe that Christ came to save all men, and thus we are perfectly within our rights to convey our greetings to everyone, believer and unbeliever alike.)

And another thing: having lived and worked in areas with large Jewish populations, and having many Jewish friends, I have frequently wished them “Happy Hanukkah” and “Shana Tovah”, and received the same in return. I have yet to say, “Don’t say that to me, I’m not Jewish.”

Guess what? Alienating customers = bad for business.
Being 'politically correct' and trying to be as inclusive as possible = good for business.

Your argument fails even on its own terms. There are far, far more Christians who are “alienated” by the disrespect shown to our traditions and holidays than there are angry non-Christian minorities who are "alienated" by respect for said traditions and holidays (and I have yet to see any persuasive evidence that there is any meaningful number of such "aliendated" non-Christians). When being “inclusive” means deliberately excluding any mention for or respect for the beliefs and practices of the majority, the concept of “inclusiveness” is turned on its head and inevitably backfires.

I personally refused to shop at Target (which kicked out the Salvation Army Christmas bell-ringers), Macy’s (which dropped “Merry Christmas”) and Best Buy (one of whose executives is on record as deliberately exclusing any mention of Christmas.) Many people I know did likewise. Anecdotal evicence, to be sure, and perhaps of limited probative value, but evidence nonetheless. Apparently, however, enough of us did so to send a message that was heard loud and clear, for at least some businesses that had previously succumbed to anti-Christian/anti-Christmas PC pressure have realized that and have reversed themselves. For example, both Macy’s and Wal-Mart reversed their 2005 policies and in 2006 explicitly recognized Christmas and restored the “Merry Christmas” approach to holiday shopping.

Two words. Public education.

It might not have been an issue a few decades ago, when the majority of students (and people paying education taxes) were Christians. But the times, they are a changing, and the public education system is a secular one.

The overwhelming majority of students, as well as taxpayers, are and remain Christians. Furthermore, “secular” education is not synonymous with education that is overtly hostile to and exclusive toward expressions of the Christian faith, historically at the very foundation of Western civilization.

In Canada, we have a separate, publicly funded Catholic system. I think it's ridiculous, but there it is, and we likely aren't going to get rid of it. We also have schools here and there within the regular public system that offer the 'Logos' program, which is a blended Christian program. Point being...if you really want your Christian child to have Christmas festivities etc, you choose a school that suits your needs.

Just like the rest of us choose schools that suit OUR needs. And one of those needs is NOT having a religion not our own shoved down our, or our children's throats.

When you and your children are compelled to get down on your knees in school, recite the Our Father and confess that Jesus Christ is your personal Savior, then you will have a point. Christmas festivities fall far short of that mark. Not persuasive.

Just look at the words you used. Homosexuality and/or other DEVIANT lifestyle choices.

You have used very perjorative language, that is meant to apply to homosexuality as well as other, unnamed 'bad things'.

Precisely. I will use any and all language I see fit to express my views on any given subject. I will not modify my expressions to accommodate anyone’s sensitivities. If anyone feels “offended,” see above.

So you get called on it. Does that intimidate you?

"Called"? Call all you want. “Intimidate”? Hardly. Say whatever you please in response to what I or anyone else says. But again, I will not concede to you or anyone else any “right” to make me change a single word I choose to utter.

Bigotry SHOULD be noted, and when you voice it, yeah, you SHOULD be taken to task. No one can stop you from being a bigot, but they CAN:

1) as an employer, can your ass if your behaviour is offensive, harassing, or out of step with the company policy

And the non-PC public can respond accordingly to any such policy.

2) as an individual, exercise their own free speech and challenge your statements

The first sensible statement so far.

3) as constituents, fans, or audience, decide that they don't like your attitude, and boycott you.

Of course, that sword cuts both ways.

None of this is legislated. None of this is forced, or automatic. This is the PUBLIC, yes, even in the form of private corporations, reacting to shifting social trends that makes bigotry unacceptable. It seems that this irks some people, who would like to retain the status quo, where bigotry is A-OK.

Oh, enough with the B-word. The excessive sensitivity (or attention-whorishness) of various individuals and minorities does not automatically render the targets of their hostility “bigots" or their expressions "bigotry.”

I routinely tell racist jokes in certain company. Mostly about my own people, mind you. Oh, and blonde jokes. Love those. IN CERTAIN COMPANY.

Well, props to you. I myself tell plenty of Italian jokes and I love Goodfellas and The Sopranos. And I told plenty of blonde jokes even when I was one myself.

Because, by context, they can tell when I'm serious, and when I'm not...and don't assume I'm actually a self-hating Indian/woman. Would I think it appropriate to tell those same jokes in public? A big 'FUCK NO' pulled out of the box of 'obvious'.

I tell the same jokes in public. I am not going to exclude ethnic humor from the public sphere.

You cry about freedom of speech, and then turn around and say some people shouldn't have it?

Nice spin, but it doesn't work.

Those punks can say whatever they want. They cannot, however (unless a cowardly and dishonest college administration wrongly allows them to) prevent other people from saying what they want.

The incident I referred to is reported here:

http://www.nysun.com/article/41020

and shown here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfnn7wTgoE8

Note the following:

“Students stormed the stage at Columbia University's Roone auditorium yesterday, knocking over chairs and tables and attacking Jim Gilchrist, the founder of the Minutemen, a group that patrols the border between America and Mexico.

Mr. Gilchrist and Marvin Stewart, another member of his group, were in the process of giving a speech at the invitation of the Columbia College Republicans.”

The freedom of speech does not include a platform from which to shout it out to the world, unhindered. Not unless (in Canada) there is literally NO other way to get that message out.

Actually, it does. Your freedom of speech ends when it infringes someone else’s. You most certainly do not have any “right” to prevent someone from speaking, for any reason, in particular because you don’t like what’s being said.

Emasculate...strip the masculine...yes. It makes no sense, in todays world, to automatically use the masculine pronouns.

It makes perfect sense to select one set of pronouns as a generic set in a language, such as English, that otherwise lacks one, in "today's world" or any other. The opposition to it is based primarily on resentment.

Yes. It has clearly made the English language unwieldy and nonsensical. Instead, saying things like, 'female policeman' or 'female chairman' would work MUCH better! And pointing out, as this does, that females are still in the strict minority in these positions is a GOOD thing, right?

“Policewoman” and “chairwoman” are perfectly adequate expressions.

Yes well, when dealing with cultures that do not use the same calendar, coming up with an accepted frame of reference is just so obtuse I suppose.

“A.D.” is a perfectly adequate “frame of reference”. Nobody is being fooled by calling it the “Common Era.” I seriously doubt that anybody who didn’t use A.D. even recognizes the existence of such a thing as the “Common Era.” The A.D. dating system is part of the majority Western culture. Changing it is grounded in disrespect for that culture and/or a misguided belief that others (e.g., Muslims, who use their own calendar, are hardly likely to do otherwise, and show no apparent concern for anyone who is “offended” by it) will find it somehow more acceptable.

I'm not going to respond to all of your idiotic comments, but let's examine a few gems.

And as for a “right not to be discriminated against,” the only discrimination going on is against those who refuse to enunciate PC shibboleths and otherwise tow the PC party line.

Right. That is the only discrimination that exists. Women aren't discriminated against in the U.S. Blacks aren't discriminated against in the U.S. Hispanics aren't discriminated against in the U.S. Only white, Christian, males face discrimination. :rolleyes::headbang:

Those who object to “traditional, bigoted references to oneself” have the following options:
1) ignore them (“sticks and stones”);
2) respond to them in a reasoned manner;
3) adopt the references, thereby neutralizing them.
They do not have the “right” to tell me what and what not to say, and I am not about to give them such a “right”.

Telling people that certain language is inappropriate and objecting to such language is responding in a reasoned manner.

People don't have a right to control what you may or may not say, but they can criticize your choice of words.

Free speech works both ways.

It makes perfect sense to specially and specifically recognize the beliefs and traditions of the majority, and that majority is Christian. There is no “alienation” involved in making non-Christian minorities (or minorities in general, for that matter) recognize and accept the fact that they are minorities. Those poor sensitive non-Christian souls who feel “alienated” when someone wishes them a Merry Christmas need to get over themselves, accept reality and take the greeting in the spirit in which it was offered. (And as an aside: we Christians believe that Christ came to save all men, and thus we are perfectly within our rights to convey our greetings to everyone, believer and unbeliever alike.)

We are a secular, multicultural republic. For someone that babbles on about free speech, you seem to have little respect for the other parts of the First Amendment.

The overwhelming majority of students, as well as taxpayers, are and remain Christians. Furthermore, “secular” education is not synonymous with education that is overtly hostile to and exclusive toward expressions of the Christian faith, historically at the very foundation of Western civilization.

There is nothing "overtly hostile" about remaining neutral among belief systems.

Precisely. I will use any and all language I see fit to express my views on any given subject. I will not modify my expressions to accommodate anyone’s sensitivities. If anyone feels “offended,” see above.

"Called"? Call all you want. “Intimidate”? Hardly. Say whatever you please in response to what I or anyone else says. But again, I will not concede to you or anyone else any “right” to make me change a single word I choose to utter.

Again, use what language you wish, but you don't have a right for others not to react to what you say in a negative manner.

If you wish to be an insensitive asshat, expect to be treated like an insensitive asshat.

Oh, enough with the B-word. The excessive sensitivity (or attention-whorishness) of various individuals and minorities does not automatically render the targets of their hostility “bigots" or their expressions "bigotry.”

Meh. And bigotry is not automatically rendered into mere excessive sensitivity on the part of minorities.

It makes perfect sense to select one set of pronouns as a generic set in a language, such as English, that otherwise lacks one, in "today's world" or any other. The opposition to it is based primarily on resentment.

It makes perfect set to select a neutral set of pronouns as the generic set in a language. In other words, there is no reason to use slanted pronouns when others will do the job more precisely.

“Policewoman” and “chairwoman” are perfectly adequate expressions.

Police officer and chairperson are better expressions.

...
Again, use what language you wish, but you don't have a right for others not to react to what you say in a negative manner.

If you wish to be an insensitive asshat, expect to be treated like an insensitive asshat.
...


This should have been enough right there. It seems to be the crux of the problem with the anti-PC movement.

Police officer and chairperson are better expressions.

They are less specific, so, in terms of description, they are worse.

This should have been enough right there. It seems to be the crux of the problem with the anti-PC movement.

"Anti-PC" = "I should get to call people 'niggers,' but nobody should be allowed to call me 'racist.'"
Quite obviously, I agree with you (and Cat).

They are less specific, so, in terms of description, they are worse.
Not worse. And they would be more correct where the gender is unknown or will vary.

With police officer or chairperson you don't have to know the gender, and it'll always be correct and accurate. Simply stating a policeman will be inaccurate if it's a female...

*Dressed like a redneck*

Them PC librulz r allowin the illegal imm'grants to taek urr jerbz! [/IGNROANT_REDNECK_ANTI-IMM]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSb1Orv_shE

LOL *dey took errr jobs!!*

Waaaaaahhh! I'm a white, heterosexual Chrisitian male, and people don't get down and worship me for it anymore! In fact, some dare to suggest that they might be just as good as me! SOMEONE SAVE ME FROM THE PC HORROR THAT IS ERODING MY PRIVILEGE!

I'm not going to respond to all of your idiotic comments, but let's examine a few gems.




If you wish to be an insensitive asshat, expect to be treated like an insensitive asshat.


Now, just out of curiosity, could you make your arguments without flames?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSb1Orv_shE

LOL *dey took errr jobs!!*

*Dey turk yer durr.*

Now, just out of curiosity, could you make your arguments without flames?

Lil' ol' Kitty-Cat obviously has more in common with the Columbia University disruptors than with rational adults. I expected nothing better ;)

Lil' ol' Kitty-Cat obviously has more in common with the Columbia University disruptors than with rational adults. I expected nothing better ;)

Cat-Tribe need no defending. His credentials are quite stellar. You, on the other hand...all you've give us is 'waaa, this is a Christian land, and we are Christians, and we should be respected above all'.

How many 'Christians' actually care about these things you complain about? Nothing rational in your argument, whatsoever. You just feel 'put upon'.

And babe...the times, they are a changing.

Your wallowing in self-pity and claimed persecution are worthy of nothing more than ridicule. And that's what you got.

Now, just out of curiosity, could you make your arguments without flames?

Learn what a flame is. It's an insult directed at a specific poster. Not a statement like, 'act like an asshat and be treated accordingly'.

Aw, what's wrong...feeling persecuted again?

Learn what a flame is. It's an insult directed at a specific poster. Not a statement like, 'act like an asshat and be treated accordingly'.

Aw, what's wrong...feeling persecuted again?

Bullshit. I know Kat's told me to knock it off before for attacking a group of people who weren't posters on NSG or involved in the thread. If you wish, I can link to it.

Hell, I don't feel persecuted. The only reason I'm anti-PC is a "I might not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it" kind of thing.

Bullshit. I know Kat's told me to knock it off before for attacking a group of people who weren't posters on NSG or involved in the thread. If you wish, I can link to it.

Take it to Moderation, I could give a shit.

I don't think anyone going to defend a group of people characterised as 'asshats' from being treated as 'asshats'.

Lil' ol' Kitty-Cat obviously has more in common with the Columbia University disruptors than with rational adults.

And yet you can't seem to respond to his rational points rationally.

I suppose you'd feel intimidated and persecuted and martyr'd if I pointed out that this is mostly because you aren't a rational adult.

Bullshit. I know Kat's told me to knock it off before for attacking a group of people who weren't posters on NSG or involved in the thread. If you wish, I can link to it.

Hey here's an idea, if you think something is a flame, report it to the mods and let them make the judgement. Then we can all move on from this amateur-night at the mod's playground drama that's getting so bloody tiresome on this forum.

Now, just out of curiosity, could you make your arguments without flames?
Learn what a flame is. It's an insult directed at a specific poster. Not a statement like, 'act like an asshat and be treated accordingly'.

The exact quote was "If you wish to be an insensitive asshat, expect to be treated like an insensitive asshat."

That's directed. That's flaming. Knock it off, The Cat-Tribe. You know better.

Cat-Tribe need no defending. His credentials are quite stellar.

A matter of opinion.

You, on the other hand...all you've give us is 'waaa, this is a Christian land, and we are Christians, and we should be respected above all'.

How many 'Christians' actually care about these things you complain about? Nothing rational in your argument, whatsoever. You just feel 'put upon'.

Yes, clearly my arguments concerning the First Amendment right of free speech and the absence of any of the "rights" you enumerated were nothing more than "waaa." As was my criticism of extreme leftist intimidation at Columbia University.

But that's OK. I never expected to change your mind, or anyone else who shares the anti-Christian, anti-Western animus that informs the PC movement. You asked a question, I answered it, and that's enough.

And babe...the times, they are a changing.

Not all change is progress, babe. "The times" were changing in 476 AD also, and the consequence was the Dark Ages.

That's one reason to study history: to be able to recognize changes for the worse, and then act to reverse them. PC will be stopped and eventually reversed, much to the chagrin of its adherents on this board in their comfy little worlds.

Your wallowing in self-pity and claimed persecution are worthy of nothing more than ridicule. And that's what you got.

Your mischaracterization of my post is typical, and misses the point, as most of your responses usually do. As for "ridicule", such replies mean as much to me as the sound of screen doors banging in the wind or the end result of Rusty consuming a can of Beef-a-reeno. If anything, they're good for a laugh. :p

Yes, clearly my arguments concerning the First Amendment right of free speech and the absence of any of the "rights" you enumerated were nothing more than "waaa."

Your 'argument' on First Amendment rights confered them upon you. You then went on to deny other people their First Amendment right to tell you to shut the fuck up when you tell racist or sexist jokes. Nothing in the First Amendment give you the right to unrestricted free speech, and a platform from which to shout it, unchallenged.

Political correctness is the rest of us telling you, 'hey, you know what? That's not appropriate...and if you continue, we're going to treat you like the ass you behaving like.'




As was my criticism of extreme leftist intimidation at Columbia University. And on the other side, you have Fred Phelps. Hmmm, who wins the biggest asshat contest?

But that's OK. I never expected to change your mind, or anyone else who shares the anti-Christian, anti-Western animus that informs the PC movement.



Your mischaracterization of my post is typical, and misses the point, as most of your responses usually do. As for "ridicule", such replies mean as much to me as the sound of screen doors banging in the wind or the end result of Rusty consuming a can of Beef-a-reeno. If anything, they're good for a laugh. :p

So, like I said...your wallowing in self-pity and claimed persecution are worthy of nothing more than ridicule. Poor, poor, pitiful you, the beset upon white, heterosexual Christian male. The rest of us are all out to 'get' you.

I agree -- we need to create a society with chocolate rivers and gumdrop trees where children can laugh and prance around without hurting anyone's feelings ever!:D

I agree -- we need to create a society with chocolate rivers and gumdrop trees where children can laugh and prance around without hurting anyone's feelings ever!:D
As New Mitanni has pointed out...the people getting their 'feelings hurt' are the white, heterosexual, Christian males who are upset that minorities don't seem to know their 'place' anymore. And not all those WHCM by the way...just the ones who deep down just can not accept difference in others.

Hey point is that she doesn't like her middle school. Therefore she's calling it, and everything related to it, PC, as per the thread title

Exactly! :)

It was meant to be a joke :fluffle:

Though I really do hate my middle school.

Lil' ol' Kitty-Cat obviously has more in common with the Columbia University disruptors than with rational adults. I expected nothing better ;)

My bad.

Now that that is over, perhaps you could actually try responding to the substantive points I made.

Yes, clearly my arguments concerning the First Amendment right of free speech and the absence of any of the "rights" you enumerated were nothing more than "waaa."

Your understanding of the First Amendment seems pretty weak. You may note that it only restricts the actions of government.

Moreover, the principle of free speech is a two-way street. Sure you have the right to say stupid or hurtful things and others have the right to say your words are stupid or hurtful.

As was my criticism of extreme leftist intimidation at Columbia University.

Oh NO! You've shown a handful of college students have taken their protests of a speaker too far! Color me unimpressed.

But that's OK. I never expected to change your mind, or anyone else who shares the anti-Christian, anti-Western animus that informs the PC movement. You asked a question, I answered it, and that's enough.

There is nothing anti-Christian or anti-Western about asking that people avoid using epithets and other inappropriate language.

The fact that you have to make a bogeyman out of "the PC movement" shows the weakness of your argument.

Not all change is progress, babe. "The times" were changing in 476 AD also, and the consequence was the Dark Ages.

That's one reason to study history: to be able to recognize changes for the worse, and then act to reverse them. PC will be stopped and eventually reversed, much to the chagrin of its adherents on this board in their comfy little worlds.

Did you really just compare modern times to the Dark Ages? ROTFLASTC

Man, you are desperate.

But when exactly were the good ole' days when things were better?

Your mischaracterization of my post is typical, and misses the point, as most of your responses usually do. As for "ridicule", such replies mean as much to me as the sound of screen doors banging in the wind or the end result of Rusty consuming a can of Beef-a-reeno. If anything, they're good for a laugh. :p

Nice to see you're going for high-minded substance. That'll show her.

Exactly! :)

It was meant to be a joke :fluffle:

Though I really do hate my middle school.

Having loathed my middle school, I know where you're coming from. :fluffle:

Did you really just compare modern times to the Dark Ages? ROTFLASTC

Man, you are desperate.

But when exactly were the good ole' days when things were better?

When the Puritans were in charge, obviously.

Your understanding of the First Amendment seems pretty weak. You may note that it only restricts the actions of government.

Let's just skip over that point, or we might end up with some pointless armchair lawyering, and I frankly don't think my stomach is up for it.

Your 'argument' on First Amendment rights confered them upon you. You then went on to deny other people their First Amendment right to tell you to shut the fuck up when you tell racist or sexist jokes.

I don't know how many more times I have to say, "Say whatever you want," so I'll say it one more time: Say whatever you want. Just don't expect me or others to say what you think we have to say, or acquiesce when you try to impose your ideology on the rest of society.

Have I made myself clear now? Or do I need to repeat it again?

By the way: are you capable of responding to those who oppose you without profanity? Not very ladylike, my dear.

Nothing in the First Amendment give you the right to unrestricted free speech, and a platform from which to shout it, unchallenged.

Actually, unless I'm yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, or knowingly libelling someone, or engaging in a few other limited exceptions, it pretty much does. Challenge all you like, but that's where it ends.

Political correctness is the rest of us telling you, 'hey, you know what? That's not appropriate...and if you continue, we're going to treat you like the ass you behaving like.'

When it's you and those of like mind expressing their opinions, fine. When state power gets involved, not fine.

And on the other side, you have Fred Phelps. Hmmm, who wins the biggest asshat contest?

Fred Phelps is an isolated example. The Columbia punk rioters are examples of a widespread phenomenon. And for the record, I despise Phelps and the WBC. I happen to live near a major military cemetery (my own dear departed mother is buried there btw), and if I find out that that idiot ever plans to disrupt a funeral there I'd be inclined to organize a counter-protest. Not sure that'd be the best response, but that's my inclination.

So save your Fred Phelps references, they aren't persuasive.

And keep up the "ridicule," if it makes you feel any better, or any more morally superior :D

unless I'm yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, or knowingly libelling someone, or engaging in a few other limited exceptions, it pretty much does. Challenge all you like, but that's where it ends.

Well, not everybody here is an American, and in a number of places around the world the concensus is that there are reasonable limitations on freedom of speech - and those limitations might not necessarily jibe with your own particular point-of-view. I know there's a fair number of you who think this is just awful, not being able to as big an arsehole as you'd like, but it suits the rest of us just fine, thanks.

While there is a tendency amongst Americans to regard impingements on one's freedom to be a loudmouthed, total dick as tantamount to physical assault, there is seemingly no attention paid whatsoever to people's rights to not be unduly impinged upon by loudmouthed, total dicks.

Your understanding of the First Amendment seems pretty weak. You may note that it only restricts the actions of government.

Public schools discriminating against Christmas expressions: government action
State governments changing language: government action
Businesses implementing PC policies: not government action, but part of the same movement.

As for your questioning my First Amendment understanding, I'll refrain from getting into a resume-quoting competition.

Moreover, the principle of free speech is a two-way street. Sure you have the right to say stupid or hurtful things and others have the right to say your words are stupid or hurtful.

Again, say what you want. If you try to censor or otherwise control my expression, you'll be opposed. Simple as that.


There is nothing anti-Christian or anti-Western about asking that people avoid using epithets and other inappropriate language.

If that were the extent of PC, you would have a point. But it isn't, and you know it.

The fact that you have to make a bogeyman out of "the PC movement" shows the weakness of your argument.

The fact that you refuse to recognize the excesses of "the PC movement" shows the weakness of yours.

But when exactly were the good ole' days when things were better?

Pre-1965, with the exception of segregation laws.

Nice to see you're going for high-minded substance. That'll show her.

Nice to see another Seinfeld fan.

Well, not everybody here is an American, and in a number of places around the world the concensus is that there are reasonable limitations on freedom of speech

Among the many reasons we declared independence :D

- and those limitations might not necessarily jibe with your own particular point-of-view. I know there's a fair number of you who think this is just awful, not being able to as big an arsehole as you'd like, but it suits the rest of us just fine, thanks.

Feel free to limit your own freedoms to your hearts' content. When I visit your countries, I will respect your rules.

While there is a tendency amongst Americans to regard impingements on one's freedom to be a loudmouthed, total dick as tantamount to physical assault, there is seemingly no attention paid whatsoever to people's rights to not be unduly impinged upon by loudmouthed, total dicks.

That's because there is no such "right". That has been the entire thrust of my argument.

And if there were, I might turn that argument around and claim my right not to be "unduly impinged upon" by "chairs," "Winter Festivals", and the rest of the "offensive" PC vocabulary.

That's because there is no such "right". That has been the entire thrust of my argument.

And if there were, I might turn that argument around and claim my right not to be "unduly impinged upon" by "chairs," "Winter Festivals", and the rest of the "offensive" PC vocabulary.

The 1st Amendment is a double edged sword. If you want to say "Merry Christmas" you can't really be pissed off when someone else says "Happy Holidays." Well, you can, but you also can't stop them, unless you want to stoop to the level of this PC-bogeyman you've constructed for yourself.

Public schools discriminating against Christmas expressions: government action

Public schools do not discriminate against Christmas expressions. They merely maintain a seperation of church and state and an appreciation of multiculturalism.

I'm sorry that you see obeying the First Amendment as violating it.

State governments changing language: government action

Examples? (And don't say you already gave them, because you haven't)

Businesses implementing PC policies: not government action, but part of the same movement.

And not covered by the First Amendment.

And what is a "PC policy" exactly?

As for your questioning my First Amendment understanding, I'll refrain from getting into a resume-quoting competition.

Good choice on your part.

Again, say what you want. If you try to censor or otherwise control my expression, you'll be opposed. Simple as that.

People criticizing your expression or changing their own expression is not controlling your expression.

Freedom of speech doesn't remove responsibility for what you say. Simple as that.

If that were the extent of PC, you would have a point. But it isn't, and you know it.

That is what you were whining about. Now you say that isn't the "extent of PC." Perhaps you better be specific.

The fact that you refuse to recognize the excesses of "the PC movement" shows the weakness of yours.

Every cause has excesses. But you can't lump everything vaguely progressive into "the PC movement," nor can you claim that it is all poisoned by a few excesses.

That's because there is no such "right". That has been the entire thrust of my argument.

The expectation of equal protection is a right. The seperation of church and state is built upon rights.

Polite behavior may not be a "right," but rights are not the only things that influence our conduct.

And if there were, I might turn that argument around and claim my right not to be "unduly impinged upon" by "chairs," "Winter Festivals", and the rest of the "offensive" PC vocabulary.

How are you harmed by other people's use of sensitive language?

The use of offensive language carries an obvious harm, but the "harm" you seem to complain about is simply the world having different sensibilities than you.

My PC was a piece of crap so I got a Mac.

By the way: are you capable of responding to those who oppose you without profanity? Not very ladylike, my dear. As if I fucking give a flying monkey shit.



Actually, unless I'm yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, or knowingly libelling someone, or engaging in a few other limited exceptions, it pretty much does. Challenge all you like, but that's where it ends. No. Once again, you fail at understanding exactly what 'right' you have to free speech. You do not get unrestricted free speech with a platform from which to shout it. Meaning, you can not force other people to be silent while you blather on. You can not force people to give you a place to blather on, whilst everyone listens raptly. You can't force people to not shout and laugh and point during your blatherings.

So I laugh, and point...go ahead, blather on.

My PC was a piece of crap so I got a Mac.

ANOTHER winner of thread.

No one can ever be gay enough.

Oh, and my messages are bouncing again.

Not even Liberace, or Dane Cook after he has his dream about giant crabs wearing boots and shooting lightning out of their eye stalks?

I blame the PC movement for their PC cantaloupe getting caught in my PC braces! :mad:

:p

Pre-1965, with the exception of segregation laws.

That's always the trick, isn't it?

Not even Liberace, or Dane Cook after he has his dream about giant crabs wearing boots and shooting lightning out of their eye stalks?

No. Never gay enough.

That's always the trick, isn't it?

For some reason I thought I disliked you. These past few days have made me wonder how that would ever be so.

No. Never gay enough.

o.0

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo
re: Sexual social behavior

(obviously no vid/imagery) :p

o.0

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo
re: Sexual social behavior

(obviously no vid/imagery) :p

Frot! I just learned a new word!

And no...still not 'gay enough'. Gay enough simply does not exist.

Frot! I just learned a new word!Erm, i served a USEFUL purpose? :eek:

*ponders*
*thinks of Comic-Book Guy*
Gay enough simply does not exist.Again, we're left to our imaginations and inferences, it would seem.
*sigh*

As if I fucking give a flying monkey shit.

I'll bet you're pretty when you're mad too ;)

I'll bet you're pretty when you're mad too ;)

I'm pretty 24/7, and mad very rarely.

Sorry, can't spar with you at the moment, I'm in mourning.

I'm pretty 24/7, and mad very rarely.

Sorry, can't spar with you at the moment, I'm in mourning.
5:30 is the afternoon silly.

5:30 is the afternoon silly.

I actually had to read that twice to figure out what you were on about.

And yes, I guffawed (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/guffawed).

Really? That would honestly be something amazing. To create a persona that you actually lived like that...dedication. Imagine being SO hated by the people you actually support, and loved by the people you despise...

I don't believe it, but I would be beyond impressed if it were true.

Like I said, though, it's only speculation. And even if it's true, there had to have been a point where she realized no one was getting it, but decided the money she was making was more important than her point.

I doubt she's liberal, by any stretch of imagination - but she definitely seems to be playing the caricature of a fundamentalist neocon. And enriching herself in the process. As I said, I don't blame here - only those who actually buy into what she says and support or hate her for it.

I doubt she's liberal, by any stretch of imagination - but she definitely seems to be playing the caricature of a fundamentalist neocon. And enriching herself in the process. As I said, I don't blame here - only those who actually buy into what she says and support or hate her for it.

Yeah, think of all the liberalism she's destroyed and facist, erm, conservative opinions she's entrenched… even if she were a liberal, she's done much more harm than good.

P.S. I have no problem with racial PC, but political…*grr

Yeah, think of all the liberalism she's destroyed and facist, erm, conservative opinions she's entrenched… even if she were a liberal, she's done much more harm than good.

P.S. I have no problem with racial PC, but political…*grr

Oh, I doubt that she's destroyed any liberalism.

Oh, I doubt that she's destroyed any liberalism.

True. I mistated my point. Conversatism she's validated, then.

*Dey turk yer durr.*

*Dey tek is jeb!!!!*

So we'we passed 30 pages...


...is somebody going to define "PC" yet?

So we'we passed 30 pages...


...is somebody going to define "PC" yet?

Oh yeah, New Mitanni vaguely defined it as things that piss him off. Mostly things he perceived as not respecting the 'Christian majority'.

Oh yeah, New Mitanni vaguely defined it as things that piss him off. Mostly things he perceived as not respecting the 'Christian majority'.

Yeah I discounted that as it wasn't what I would call a definition...

I'm just a bit surprised (not much though, to be honest) that so many people has voiced their more or less strong opinions on an unclear, vague and (at best) loosely defined term...

Oh yeah, New Mitanni vaguely defined it as things that piss him off. Mostly things he perceived as not respecting the 'Christian majority'.

Hmmm... we get to define it as anything that pisses us off? Then I think religious "right" disrespecting the words of Christ AND Paul is PC. *nods*

You know that whole do unto others and do not pray on the corners like the hypocrites thing. Or that whole thing about how Paul said that causing someone to stumble in their faith, any faith, is abominable.

But, hey, that's just me noticing what the Bible says. Carry on with your crusades, NM. Don't let me or the teachings of the people you claim to worship get in your way.

That's the thing...the vehemence of the people opposed to 'PC', and they can't even really tell us what it is. It's just a 'feeling' or well it's like *random examples of 'bad' things*.

It's like you take all the little things in life that irk you, ball them together, and dub the ball 'PC', and take little, furious kicks at it. Must make people feel better or something.

So we'we passed 30 pages...


...is somebody going to define "PC" yet?

Judging by the vitriol directed at it I can only assume that it involves crucifying kittens and barbequing babies. PC almost certainly kicks puppies as well.

That's the thing...the vehemence of the people opposed to 'PC', and they can't even really tell us what it is. It's just a 'feeling' or well it's like *random examples of 'bad' things*.

It's like you take all the little things in life that irk you, ball them together, and dub the ball 'PC', and take little, furious kicks at it. Must make people feel better or something.

My favorite part is when they manage to combine an enormous amount of absurd generalization with homophobia and a misunderstanding of PC.

"It's women's fault for turning us into gay boys. How dare anyone suggest that men be considerate and polite?"

Oddly enough, it used to be considered normal for men to be both polite and to make an effort to curb their speech so as not to offend others.

Somehow it's difficult for me to imagine my father walking around calling people names, anyone names, just for the sake of proving that he's "allowed" to.

That's the thing...the vehemence of the people opposed to 'PC', and they can't even really tell us what it is. It's just a 'feeling' or well it's like *random examples of 'bad' things*.

It's like you take all the little things in life that irk you, ball them together, and dub the ball 'PC', and take little, furious kicks at it. Must make people feel better or something.

Indeed. I stand by my original post in this thread: It's an empty term designed to distract attention away from real debate, and a blank cheque for people to be angry without needing to explain why. (And thus they don't need to expose the true nature of their anger.)

My favorite part is when they manage to combine an enormous amount of absurd generalization with homophobia and a misunderstanding of PC.

"It's women's fault for turning us into gay boys. How dare anyone suggest that men be considerate and polite?"

Oddly enough, it used to be considered normal for men to be both polite and to make an effort to curb their speech so as not to offend others.

Somehow it's difficult for me to imagine my father walking around calling people names, anyone names, just for the sake of proving that he's "allowed" to.

Sometimes, the recent addition of "there's no right not to be offended!" is thrown about as "I don't have to be polite!"

My favourite part? New Mitanni et al. will come crashing back in with the declaration of 'we've told you what it is and you ignored us!'

No. If you can't actually DESCRIBE WHAT IT IS...then your attempt to pretend you did is made of fail.

Indeed. I stand by my original post in this thread: It's an empty term designed to distract attention away from real debate, and a blank cheque for people to be angry without needing to explain why. (And thus they don't need to expose the true nature of their anger.)

Dammit, I know I could express my point just as accurately without using offensive terms, but how dare you suggest that would be helpful to a discussion?

I think it's all quite genius. They managed to get otherwise reasonable people to get angry about nonsense by claiming it's an assault on freedom of speech. It's along the lines of claiming there is an assault on men and whites in our society because they're expected to treat others as equals. You can't have that debate honestly, because complaining about equality, fairness, reason and kindness is absurd. So they have to change the landscape of the debate. Their position isn't defensible on the landscape of an accurate look at what is REALLY happening.

That's the thing...the vehemence of the people opposed to 'PC', and they can't even really tell us what it is. It's just a 'feeling' or well it's like *random examples of 'bad' things*.

It's like you take all the little things in life that irk you, ball them together, and dub the ball 'PC', and take little, furious kicks at it. Must make people feel better or something.

I got the sense from some of those who oppose PC that they feel their right to be an over-bearing loudmouth whose utterances offend those around them always trumps (and always should trump) the rights of all others to not be impinged upon by over-bearing loudmouths.

And personally, I think that's got to be one of the shittiest arguments I've ever heard.

Sometimes, the recent addition of "there's no right not to be offended!" is thrown about as "I don't have to be polite!"

My grandfather would have said "just because there is no right to not be offended does not mean it's not right to not offend."

Hey, if they can use a double-negative so can he.

Here's what it boils down to.

"I should be allowed to call people niggers. I would never do that of course, but I have a First Amendment (or Charter right, or whatever) to say it, and no one should be able to stop me (forget that both these rights apply only to government actions, because that's too confusing). Anyone who objects, or tries to silence me, is PC. Um, but I wouldn't be saying anything to silence anyway, because really, I don't actually call people niggers. Much."

Here's what it boils down to.

"I should be allowed to call people niggers. I would never do that of course, but I have a First Amendment (or Charter right, or whatever) to say it, and no one should be able to stop me (forget that both these rights apply only to government actions, because that's too confusing). Anyone who objects, or tries to silence me, is PC. Um, but I wouldn't be saying anything to silence anyway, because really, I don't actually call people niggers. Much."

I agree in general with what you've said but I would also add that some people hold the intention behind their choice of word is also very important. My father might use words which are viewed as politically incorrect but its more to do with him not keeping his vocabulary up to date rather than anything to do with disliking other groups. I know i've said this before and people have pointed out that this is fine as long as people accept a polite correction. Many however can get quite defensive about their use of language as they feel that they are being looked down on for not knowing the correct terms to use. They aren't all as bad as we think and their reasons aren't always that clear cut

I agree in general with what you've said but I would also add that some people hold the intention behind their choice of word is also very important. My father might use words which are viewed as politically incorrect but its more to do with him not keeping his vocabulary up to date rather than anything to do with disliking other groups. I know i've said this before and people have pointed out that this is fine as long as people accept a polite correction. Many however can get quite defensive about their use of language as they feel that they are being looked down on for not knowing the correct terms to use. They aren't all as bad as we think and their reasons aren't always that clear cut

Meh, everyone does that at times. You simply adjust when you learn better. And hopefully, people are reasonable with you provided it's not obvious.

A few years ago I used the term "oriental" in front of an Asian girl who freaked out. So much so that I still remember it.

"I'm asian. Oriental is a type of food."
"Huh? So is french. I'm not sure why you're yelling at me. Is it wrong to say oriental?"
Continues yelling. I suppose I could have left out the french comment, but she acted like it should be obvious how offensive the term is. At the time, I'd never heard it used as an insult or seen anyone get upset about its use.

However, the reason I remember it is because she was the exception not the rule. Most people simply let you know that it bothers them. And unless you react like "how dare you infringe upon my freedom of speech" it's unlikely they'll go further than that.

My father is a construction worker. So is my husband. Most of my friends are from the Reserve. Not a single one of them is into 'polite conversation'. I'm fine with that, because I know the intention behind the words. I understand the context. However, not a one of them doesn't change their speech when speaking to a different crowd...elders for example, parents, bosses. Even the least educated amongst them understand that you modify your speech in different contexts. If you mess up and use a term that isn't appropriate, you apologise and modify again for that context.

It's normal. It's gone on as long as humans have been around. Different words for different contexts. Nothing new, liberal, PC, evil, top-down about it. Bitching about the 'good old days' ignores the simple fact that people have ALWAYS been socially constrained in one way or another in terms of their speech. Get. The. Fuck. Over. It.

My father is a construction worker. So is my husband. Most of my friends are from the Reserve. Not a single one of them is into 'polite conversation'. I'm fine with that, because I know the intention behind the words. I understand the context. However, not a one of them doesn't change their speech when speaking to a different crowd...elders for example, parents, bosses. Even the least educated amongst them understand that you modify your speech in different contexts. If you mess up and use a term that isn't appropriate, you apologise and modify again for that context.

It's normal. It's gone on as long as humans have been around. Different words for different contexts. Nothing new, liberal, PC, evil, top-down about it. Bitching about the 'good old days' ignores the simple fact that people have ALWAYS been socially constrained in one way or another in terms of their speech. Get. The. Fuck. Over. It.

I understand your point and I agree with it but it's no reason to paint everyone who disagrees with PC ways as being a racist or wishing things were like the past when people knew their place. Some may wish for the good old days when they understood the world a bit better. Maybe that isn't an admirable quality but it isn't something to be seen as on the same level as racists wanting to keep minorities in place.

Personally I think both sides have people that need to work on and understand the implications of their communication skills. Not all of them but some of them make themselves and others look bad

My grandfather would have said "just because there is no right to not be offended does not mean it's not right to not offend."

Hey, if they can use a double-negative so can he.

Considering some look for any reason to get offended it is just as well. Perhaps it is a good thing I am not a conversationalist and don't talk to people much. It spares me their oh so righteous indignation should I say something they don't care for.

My father is an electronics technician. The first time I heard him say something that was inappropriate for children (he was a racist, note the past tense, but I mean specifically inappropriate for children) was when I was an adult and worked in his shop. My father kept the jokes, the rude comments, the swearing, outside of our home and away from us. Even when we became adults he knew it would offend our mother and my oldest brother so he keeps it away from them.

It's called being socially responsible.

Considering some look for any reason to get offended it is just as well. Perhaps it is a good thing I am not a conversationalist and don't talk to people much. It spares me their oh so righteous indignation should I say something they don't care for.

Perhaps you're talking to the wrong people. I've not encountered that but a handful of times in my life. Most people would just prefer that people not be intentionally and unreasonably offensive.

I understand your point and I agree with it but it's no reason to paint everyone who disagrees with PC ways as being a racist or wishing things were like the past when people knew their place.

When who knew what place? Come again?

Perhaps you're talking to the wrong people. I've not encountered that but a handful of times in my life. Most people would just prefer that people not be intentionally and unreasonably offensive.

I suppose but it is a reason I really don't like talking about anything of substance with others, I really never know how they may react. I certainly hope I can find some people who will not respond such as that. A few others, instead of responding horridly will instead ignore you and change the subject which I think is hardly any better.

Perhaps I'm just not a people person. :(

It's called being socially responsible.

Exactly. And I don't know anyone who, sober, is incapable of that.

It isn't about understanding the world. It's about refusing to change, or about being deliberately rude. Now I am deliberately rude on an not infrequent-basis, but I'm honest about it. That's all I ask.

Perhaps you're talking to the wrong people. I've not encountered that but a handful of times in my life. Most people would just prefer that people not be intentionally and unreasonably offensive.

I've only found as argumentative a bunch in bars at around 12.30am and certain family members - both were circumstances where the audience was somewhat captive.
It's been my experience that this is a *great* venue to force people to see something to react to, and it's well within psychological parameters for people of a certain persuasion to get that special kind of glee out of doing it.

Kinda reminds me of that quote about animal-rights activists - the ones who would so willingly throw catsup on someone wearing a fur while simultaneously ignoring giant biker folk wearing leather.

This thread delivers.

I would dearly love for somebody who OPPOSES "PC" to provide a definition of exactly what it is that they are opposing. Ideally, it would be great if each anti-PC person would do so, because some of my reading on this thread leads me to suspect that you may have different definitions and this might be leading to confusion.

This thread delivers.

I would dearly love for somebody who OPPOSES "PC" to provide a definition of exactly what it is that they are opposing. Ideally, it would be great if each anti-PC person would do so, because some of my reading on this thread leads me to suspect that you may have different definitions and this might be leading to confusion.

I'd simply like not to be corrected when I use what is now somehow considered an ugly term. Job descriptions for one, if I call someone a stewardess, janitor or a garbage man I'd like not to be told that those terms are somehow wrong and I need to call them flight attendants, custodians (even this is obsolete now i think) and sanitation engineers. Secretaries is another one though I forget what I'm supposed to call them now.

Ditch this and I will be happy.

I'd simply like not to be corrected when I use what is now somehow considered an ugly term. Job descriptions for one, if I call someone a stewardess, janitor or a garbage man I'd like not to be told that those terms are somehow wrong and I need to call them flight attendants, custodians (even this is obsolete now i think) and sanitation engineers. Secretaries is another one though I forget what I'm supposed to call them now.

Ditch this and I will be happy.

administrative assistants. *nod*

This thread delivers.

I would dearly love for somebody who OPPOSES "PC" to provide a definition of exactly what it is that they are opposing. Ideally, it would be great if each anti-PC person would do so, because some of my reading on this thread leads me to suspect that you may have different definitions and this might be leading to confusion.

Yeah...I think we do. I don't have any problem with, for example, the voluntary ban on the "N-word" that's been proposed. I mean, I doubt it will work, but that's not the point. On principle, it's a nice idea.

On the other hand, I'd have to take issue, simply on the grounds of freedom of speech, of banning the word.

When I say "PC" I tend to mean stupid things done in the name of "Not offending people". For example, when that school changed the "Three Little Pigs" to the "Three Little Dogs" (Not realizing, of course, that any Muslim who would be offended by "The Three Little Pigs" would also be offended by "The Three Little Dogs".), or, as another example, when people claimed Sony ads running in some European country were "racist". (They were for the new white PSP. Basically a white woman dressed in all white and a black woman dressed in all black fighting. They had three different billboards, one with the white woman winning, one with the black woman winning, and the final one with them equal. The only one that was claimed to be racist was the one where the white woman was winning. And the worst part was, the people saying it was racist weren't even IN the country where the ads were running. I think it was in Denmark.)

Also, I admit I think spelling it "Womyn" instead of "Woman" is sort of silly.

This may be redundant, but oh well:



I think people have the right not to have people verbally attacking them. And why is it that some people can't seem to go through their lives without using offensive language against minorities?



Everyone in America is not a Christian. How would you feel if every store said "Happy Kwanzaa"? Kind of alienated?



I'll grant you, banning cookies and red and green clothing is a little extreme.



I won't argue with this one.



I did not choose my "deviant lifestyle" anymore than you probably chose to be heterosexual. And I think I have the right not to be called a "faggot" by some sexually insecure dimwit who feels just so threatened by something that's none of his business to begin with.



Should the chairman be referred to as chairman even if she's a woman?
What gives people the right to not be verbally attacked? What gives people the right to not be called a faggot? The only answers to these questions are "nothing" or some infringement on the rights of others to speak their mind freely.

I think that in the US most folks are christian and as such there should be maeery christmas signs everywhere. I am a jewboy and I do not mind it at all. I just realize that I am a minority and deal with it rather than getting all democratty.

administrative assistants. *nod*

That's it.

*nods in return*

What gives people the right to not be verbally attacked? What gives people the right to not be called a faggot? The only answers to these questions are "nothing" or some infringement on the rights of others to speak their mind freely.

I think that in the US most folks are christian and as such there should be maeery christmas signs everywhere. I am a jewboy and I do not mind it at all. I just realize that I am a minority and deal with it rather than getting all democratty.

There is nothing wrong with Merry Christmas signs among private citizens. It's when the government support one religion's festivals over everyone else, seeing as the first amendment addresses this.

And nothing stops you from speaking your mind freely. Go to town. But it's a two-way street. I also freely have the right to tell you you're a bigot IF you are. I have a right to disagree as vehemently as you have a right to say it. I can't call Nazis names. I can atttack the KKK. And it has nothing to do wiith infringing on their freedoms. It's excercising mine.

I'd simply like not to be corrected when I use what is now somehow considered an ugly term. Job descriptions for one, if I call someone a stewardess, janitor or a garbage man I'd like not to be told that those terms are somehow wrong and I need to call them flight attendants, custodians (even this is obsolete now i think) and sanitation engineers. Secretaries is another one though I forget what I'm supposed to call them now.

Ditch this and I will be happy.
If somebody wants me to use a different title for referring to their job, I respect that. Particularly if they are a sanitation engineer, because I really really really don't want to have to do their job, and I'm really really glad they're willing to do that job for me.

I've also found that male fLight attendants don't enjoy being called "stewardess," and they chuckle if you call them "steward." (Edited to reduce hilariousness)

If somebody wants me to use a different title for referring to their job, I respect that. Particularly if they are a sanitation engineer, because I really really really don't want to have to do their job, and I'm really really glad they're willing to do that job for me.

I've also found that male fight attendants don't enjoy being called "stewardess," and they chuckle if you call them "steward."

And what is the first rule of fight attendant training?

And what is the first rule of fight attendant training?
I can't talk about that particular type-o.

I've also found that male fLight attendants don't enjoy being called "stewardess," and they chuckle if you call them "steward." (Edited to reduce hilariousness)

Well I wouldn't call them a stewardess to begin with, that would just be... incorrect. Normally an "excuse me" is enough to get their attention (from the very few times I've been on a plane anyway) but in casual conversation "steward" and "stewardess" are the terms I was taught and I see nothing wrong with them, though it seems it is the secretary one that is the big one. Nothing wrong with that term either and it is much quicker than "administrative assistant".

Well I wouldn't call them a stewardess to begin with, that would just be... incorrect. Normally an "excuse me" is enough to get their attention (from the very few times I've been on a plane anyway) but in casual conversation "steward" and "stewardess" are the terms I was taught and I see nothing wrong with them,

If a person objects to me using a particular job title for them, then I view that as "something wrong." It's a minor wrong in the greater scheme of things, but it's still something that will lead me to modify my behavior. If somebody is providing a service for me, I try to at least be courteous enough to refer to them by the title they prefer.


though it seems it is the secretary one that is the big one. Nothing wrong with that term either and it is much quicker than "administrative assistant".
I'm willing to expend a few more syllables if it keeps the administrative assistant happy. Where I work, we'd be dead in the water without all the repetitive, dull, generally-thankless work that they do. I appreciate their efforts!

I'd simply like not to be corrected when I use what is now somehow considered an ugly term. Job descriptions for one, if I call someone a stewardess, janitor or a garbage man I'd like not to be told that those terms are somehow wrong and I need to call them flight attendants, custodians (even this is obsolete now i think) and sanitation engineers. Secretaries is another one though I forget what I'm supposed to call them now.

Ditch this and I will be happy.

Is that really what you would define as "Political correct" speech though?

And regardless, what is the more accurate description of what these people actually do? Garbage man vs. sanitation engineers... difficult to say, both are vague. However, garbage man will be incorrect in all cases where women are involved. And the opposite goes for Stewardess.

I've never been corrected when I've talked about somebodys job description in an incorrect way though, so...

If a person objects to me using a particular job title for them, then I view that as "something wrong." It's a minor wrong in the greater scheme of things, but it's still something that will lead me to modify my behavior. If somebody is providing a service for me, I try to at least be courteous enough to refer to them by the title they prefer.

I really don't see why I have to adjust simply because people suddenly decided there is something wrong with being called a secretary or anything else. I could tell the individual who is offended the same thing, that there are bigger things to concern themselves with then someone calling them a term they feel is outdated but means exactly the same thing and isn't insulting in the least. The service they are providing is being paid for by me anyway, that is how I see it anyway, they should be glad for that.

Is that really what you would define as "Political correct" speech though?

And regardless, what is the more accurate description of what these people actually do? Garbage man vs. sanitation engineers... difficult to say, both are vague. However, garbage man will be incorrect in all cases where women are involved. And the opposite goes for Stewardess.

I've never been corrected when I've talked about somebodys job description in an incorrect way though, so...

I was simply throwing something out that annoys me, sure there are more "serious" PC issues out there but this is one of the things that bugs me so I decided to use it.

And I've never actually seen a garbage woman before but if I do then I would certainly change to include them as well. Or just say garbageperson and keep it simple. ;)

I really don't see why I have to adjust simply because people suddenly decided there is something wrong with being called a secretary or anything else. I could tell the individual who is offended the same thing, that there are bigger things to concern themselves with then someone calling them a term they feel is outdated but means exactly the same thing and isn't insulting in the least. The service they are providing is being paid for by me anyway, that is how I see it anyway, they should be glad for that.

It didn't suddenly change. If I take on a job role in a company, any company, I'm personally permitted to call that role what I like. I literally had the title Pretty Boy at one job because I found it funny. Yes, you're asked to call people what they would prefer to be called, not what you would prefer to call them. I know that's rough, but it's a burden you should be willing to accept. By the same token, I don't call black men "boy" anymore either. I know, I know, it's just a word, why should I have to adjust just because they suddenly found it offensive, right?

They provide a service for you because we as a society would prefer not to do it ourselves. Be glad for that. You don't have to deal with sanitation engineers if you prefer. Take your trash to the dump yourself. Boy, oh, boy, that'll sure teach them a lesson.

I was simply throwing something out that annoys me, sure there are more "serious" PC issues out there but this is one of the things that bugs me so I decided to use it.

And I've never actually seen a garbage woman before but if I do then I would certainly change to include them as well. Or just say garbageperson and keep it simple. ;)

I've seen them. I dare you to call them garbagepersons. I dare you.

Yes, even the 'lowliest' have an official job title. Respect it, or don't refer to them at all.

Sucks to be a surgeon when you don't have the title Doctor anymore but have switch to Mister instead

I'd simply like not to be corrected when I use what is now somehow considered an ugly term. Job descriptions for one, if I call someone a stewardess, janitor or a garbage man I'd like not to be told that those terms are somehow wrong and I need to call them flight attendants, custodians (even this is obsolete now i think) and sanitation engineers. Secretaries is another one though I forget what I'm supposed to call them now.

Ditch this and I will be happy.

As Bottle has pointed out, you should be using the official description of the person, whether you like it or not. Refusing to is pure assholery on your part. If my title is 'Senior Electrical Engineer' are you going to refer to me as 'Sparky'? (slagn term for electricians) If my title is 'Vice Chair' are you going to call me Vice Chairman, just for the fuck of it?

Yes, even the 'lowliest' have an official job title. Respect it, or don't refer to them at all.

As Bottle has pointed out, you should be using the official description of the person, whether you like it or not. Refusing to is pure assholery on your part. If my title is 'Senior Electrical Engineer' are you going to refer to me as 'Sparky'? (slagn term for electricians) If my title is 'Vice Chairperson' are you going to call me Vice Chairman, just for the fuck of it?

Yes, even the 'lowliest' have an official job title. Respect it, or don't refer to them at all.


It didn't suddenly change. If I take on a job role in a company, any company, I'm personally permitted to call that role what I like. I literally had the title Pretty Boy at one job because I found it funny. Yes, you're asked to call people what they would prefer to be called, not what you would prefer to call them. I know that's rough, but it's a burden you should be willing to accept. By the same token, I don't call black men "boy" anymore either. I know, I know, it's just a word, why should I have to adjust just because they suddenly found it offensive, right?

They provide a service for you because we as a society would prefer not to do it ourselves. Be glad for that. You don't have to deal with sanitation engineers if you prefer. Take your trash to the dump yourself. Boy, oh, boy, that'll sure teach them a lesson.

Meh, people need to get thicker skins. And this is hardly the same as changing what you call minorities. Calling a black man "boy" or an electrician "sparky" has always been insulting. Calling someone a "secretary" is anything but. The former I would never do anyway, the latter shouldn't be a problem.

I've seen them. I dare you to call them garbagepersons. I dare you.

So now using a gender neutral term is insulting. Figures.

Isn't it garbage collectors? That's what we call them around here...

I've always used bin men but then i've never really talked to a bin man so never been corrected on the precise term to use. Apparently it was my first job choice when I was a kid

So now using a gender neutral term is insulting. Figures.

Isn't it garbage collectors? That's what we call them around here...

Meh, people need to get thicker skins. And this is hardly the same as changing what you call minorities. Calling a black man "boy" or an electrician "sparky" has always been insulting. Calling someone a "secretary" is anything but. The former I would never do anyway, the latter shouldn't be a problem.

A lot of people would argue differently. They would argue just as you have that "boy" is simply a term to reference a male and that it's specific and that people needn't suddenly create offense where none is intended. OR we could decide that people should have the privelege of deciding what they be called.


So now using a gender neutral term is insulting. Figures.

No, it's the garbage that is insulting. But then you knew that, which is why you're complaining. Fucker is also gender neutral. Amazingly, it's also insulting. Being gender neutral doesn't suddenly make it a classy term.

Meh, people need to get thicker skins. And this is hardly the same as changing what you call minorities. Calling a black man "boy" or an electrician "sparky" has always been insulting. Calling someone a "secretary" is anything but. The former I would never do anyway, the latter shouldn't be a problem.

If they're insulted by your use of a term, then it's insulting for you to continue using it.

If you use a term without knowing it will bother somebody, that's one thing. If you intentionally use a term after being told it bothers them, you're being an ass, and you know it.

Use the correct job titles when in doubt, and you will be more likely to avoid pissing off the people who are providing you with services.

If they're insulted by your use of a term, then it's insulting for you to continue using it.

If you use a term without knowing it will bother somebody, that's one thing. If you intentionally use a term after being told it bothers them, you're being an ass, and you know it.

Use the correct job titles when in doubt, and you will be more likely to avoid pissing off the people who are providing you with services.

Well sure, if it is reasonable and I find the person is insulted I would mentally roll my eyes and not use it anymore as it isn't worth the trouble to argue over the foolishness.

Isn't it garbage collectors? That's what we call them around here...

we used to call them trashmen, but apparently we are not supposed to anymore, my local guy prefers to be called by his first name, but I asked him about his job title and he said "I am a trashman but you have to call me a sanitation engineer" and I said "but are you an engineer?" and he said "no, and my work isn't sanitary either" and we both laughed.

and then he picked up my trash and recycling.

Sucks to be a surgeon when you don't have the title Doctor anymore but have switch to Mister instead

I don't think so. In my experience a good way to annoy a surgeon is to refer to them as Dr. [Smith] (for example). :D

Weird. I've been told it is because it takes a lot of effort to have FRCS (Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons) after their name, so being a Mister is prestigious.

My favourite part? New Mitanni et al. will come crashing back in with the declaration of 'we've told you what it is and you ignored us!'

No. If you can't actually DESCRIBE WHAT IT IS...then your attempt to pretend you did is made of fail.

If you can't read what's written, then your attempt to ridicule those who have responded to you is "made of fail" (I assume you intended something intelligible like "meant to fail." Perhaps English isn't your "native language"?)

Obviously you haven't "ignored us", at least to the extent of posting follow-ups, however inaccurate or unresponsive they may be.

I believe I was quite clear when I started my post by referring to an imaginary "right not to be offended," which, when it is adopted by governmental authorities, becomes a direct affront to First Amendment rights (for us Americans at least--those of you who don't have, or don't care about, such rights are free (pun intended) to continue being thought-controlled).

This so-called right manifests itself everywhere one looks, from changing job titles to referring to discussion leaders as furniture to attempting to remove all references to Christianity from the public forum. This last manifestation, IMO, is grounded in hatred of Chrisitanity in general and resentment toward all those "dead white Christian males" who helped establish Western society, and American society in particular.

So, since you want an actual, explicit definition, I'll spell one out:

Political Correctness: an ideology the surface intention of which is to reduce or eliminate the occurrence of vocabulary or cultural practices which at least some members of at least some groups, in particular groups other than white Christian males, claim are "offensive" to them, and of which an actual motivation is hostility to, resentment toward or hatred toward vocabulary or cultural practices characteristic of or attributable to white Christian males and a desire for retribution against white Christian males or an alteration of those societies in which the vocabulary and/or cultural practices charactistic of white Christian males prevail.

You asked for it. Now you've got it.

If you can't read what's written, then your attempt to ridicule those who have responded to you is "made of fail" (I assume you intended something intelligible like "meant to fail." Perhaps English isn't your "native language"?)

Obviously you haven't "ignored us", at least to the extent of posting follow-ups, however inaccurate or unresponsive they may be.

I believe I was quite clear when I started my post by referring to an imaginary "right not to be offended," which, when it is adopted by governmental authorities, becomes a direct affront to First Amendment rights (for us Americans at least--those of you who don't have, or don't care about, such rights are free (pun intended) to continue being thought-controlled).

This so-called right manifests itself everywhere one looks, from changing job titles to referring to discussion leaders as furniture to attempting to remove all references to Christianity from the public forum. This last manifestation, IMO, is grounded in hatred of Chrisitanity in general and resentment toward all those "dead white Christian males" who helped establish Western society, and American society in particular.

So, since you want an actual, explicit definition, I'll spell one out:

Political Correctness: an ideology the surface intention of which is to reduce or eliminate the occurrence of vocabulary or cultural practices which at least some members of at least some groups, in particular groups other than white Christian males, claim are "offensive" to them, and of which an actual motivation is hostility to, resentment toward or hatred toward vocabulary or cultural practices characteristic of or attributable to white Christian males and a desire for retribution against white Christian males or an alteration of those societies in which the vocabulary and/or cultural practices charactistic of white Christian males prevail.

You asked for it. Now you've got it.

Man, do I love that persecution complex.

You know it's fun. I'm white, Christian, heterosexual and male. All my life. And not once, not one time have I been persecuted for it, have I been oppressed, have my right been trampled on because of it. Not only that, but I've never seen it or evidence of it.

Seems like it's you that represent SOME members of a group who think it's a violation of their rights because you find what you call PC offensive. None of the things you listed are government acts. Not one. But, hey, prove me wrong. Show me one law that does not allow public displays of Christianity or actively oppresses the freedoms of white, male Christians. I'll wait.

If you can't read what's written, then your attempt to ridicule those who have responded to you is "made of fail" (I assume you intended something intelligible like "meant to fail." Perhaps English isn't your "native language"?)
I read what was written. A bunch of vague, ill-defined 'beefs' you have with something also vague and ill-defined.

Made. Of. Fail.

And no, it isn't my first language. It's my second. Out of four.

Obviously you haven't "ignored us", at least to the extent of posting follow-ups, however inaccurate or unresponsive they may be.

I believe I was quite clear when I started my post by referring to an imaginary "right not to be offended," which, when it is adopted by governmental authorities, becomes a direct affront to First Amendment rights (for us Americans at least--those of you who don't have, or don't care about, such rights are free (pun intended) to continue being thought-controlled).

This so-called right manifests itself everywhere one looks, from changing job titles to referring to discussion leaders as furniture to attempting to remove all references to Christianity from the public forum. This last manifestation, IMO, is grounded in hatred of Chrisitanity in general and resentment toward all those "dead white Christian males" who helped establish Western society, and American society in particular. Really? This is done by the government? The same government that is founded on a separation of church and state?

Oh wait, that's actually inaccurate, as has been pointed out before. Most of what you complain about is not government action at all, and therefore does not trigger First Amendment protection. The rest of what you have tried to characterise as 'governmental action' (naming schools as an example) was also pointed out as fallacious, as these schools you mention are secular. You yap about first amendment this, first amendment that, and keep sidestepping that whole pesky separation of church and state thing...wonder why?


So, since you want an actual, explicit definition, I'll spell one out:

Political Correctness: an ideology the surface intention of which is to reduce or eliminate the occurrence of vocabulary or cultural practices which at least some members of at least some groups, in particular groups other than white Christian males, claim are "offensive" to them, and of which an actual motivation is hostility to, resentment toward or hatred toward vocabulary or cultural practices characteristic of or attributable to white Christian males and a desire for retribution against white Christian males or an alteration of those societies in which the vocabulary and/or cultural practices charactistic of white Christian males prevail.

You asked for it. Now you've got it.
"People who are hostile towards white-Christian males are being all oppressive and unappreciative! WAAAAAA."

Okay, nice definition. Also...made of fail.

There's no right not to be offended. That applies to you poor white, Christian males too.

You're offended that you can't do this, or that. Oh no, poor you. The fact is, you CAN do this or that. But you will be ridiculed for it. So go ahead. Just quit bitching about said ridicule, and claiming it's a governmental conspiracy.

Man, do I love that persecution complex.

You know it's fun. I'm white, Christian, heterosexual and male. All my life. And not once, not one time have I been persecuted for it, have I been oppressed, have my right been trampled on because of it. Not only that, but I've never seen it or evidence of it.

Seems like it's you that represent SOME members of a group who think it's a violation of their rights because you find what you call PC offensive. None of the things you listed are government acts. Not one. But, hey, prove me wrong. Show me one law that does not allow public displays of Christianity or actively oppresses the freedoms of white, male Christians. I'll wait.
I love how he feels totally qualified to speak on your behalf. I didn't know all you straight, white, Christian males were plugged into a hive-mind.

I love how he feels totally qualified to speak on your behalf. I didn't know all you straight, white, Christian males were plugged into a hive-mind.

No, just the crazy ones. With the exception of LG. He's just crazy because he's LG.

I love how he feels totally qualified to speak on your behalf. I didn't know all you straight, white, Christian males were plugged into a hive-mind.

What I love is that his definition of PC applies exactly to what he's complaining about. Apparently, NM is incredibly PC including some kind of loathing that damages white, Christian, heterosexual males, mostly because it makes us look incredibly absurd and petty.

I'm wiping away tears here. I just realized how oppressed we really are. Poor us people expecting us to support equality and be sensitive. How dare they?!?!?

Well, no-one seems to really like dictionary definitions these days, but since there is a paucity of other definitions in the thread I thought I'd chuck this one in anyway:


Of, relating to, or supporting broad social, political, and educational change, especially to redress historical injustices in matters such as race, class, gender, and sexual orientation.
Being or perceived as being overconcerned with such change, often to the exclusion of other matters.


(Source: dictionary.com. I'm not proud :p)

Man, do I love that persecution complex.

You know it's fun. I'm white, Christian, heterosexual and male. All my life. And not once, not one time have I been persecuted for it, have I been oppressed, have my right been trampled on because of it. Not only that, but I've never seen it or evidence of it.

This might have something to do with the fact that you, Joc, don't seem particularly interested in saying sexist, racist, homophobic, or otherwise obnoxious things in mixed company. Hence, you are very unlikely to encounter "oppression" in the form of somebody telling you to shut up and quit being such a sexist/racist/homophobe.

This might have something to do with the fact that you, Joc, don't seem particularly interested in saying sexist, racist, homophobic, or otherwise obnoxious things in mixed company. Hence, you are very unlikely to encounter "oppression" in the form of somebody telling you to shut up and quit being such a sexist/racist/homophobe.


ZING.

This might have something to do with the fact that you, Joc, don't seem particularly interested in saying sexist, racist, homophobic, or otherwise obnoxious things in mixed company. Hence, you are very unlikely to encounter "oppression" in the form of somebody telling you to shut up and quit being such a sexist/racist/homophobe.

There is a way to say that in one word, ass. I don't get my rocks off by saying obnoxious things in front of people I know it will annoy and insult so they rarely if ever have to say, "Hey, Eric, quit being an ass." And, being a rational adult, when someone feels insulted because I said something I knew would insult them and they respond by telling me so, I do have a tendency to recognize my part in the equation. I'm crazy like that.

So stopping people from oppressing others is oppressing them? Fun how some people can twist anything to suit themselves. :rolleyes:

No one has any reason or excuse for going around calling people niggers, fags, etc. anyway, all they are doing is revealing their own stupidity.

No, it's the garbage that is insulting. But then you knew that, which is why you're complaining. Fucker is also gender neutral. Amazingly, it's also insulting. Being gender neutral doesn't suddenly make it a classy term.

They work with garbage. If they are insulted by being associated with it then they should either grow some skin or get a new job.

They work with garbage. If they are insulted by being associated with it then they should either grow some skin or get a new job.
Or you could just quit being intentionally insulting and then telling people to 'grow some skin' when you get exactly the reaction you knew you'd get.

Or you could just quit being intentionally insulting and then telling people to 'grow some skin' when you get exactly the reaction you knew you'd get.

Bah, I've said previously that if someone wants to make a big deal out of something little like that I will try to avoid it as it isn't worth the effort. Even though they handle garbage so a "garbage collector" or something similar would make sense. A few people having a sore spot in that regard isn't my problem so in casual conversation at least I don't feel bad about using such a term. Someone is always going to find SOMETHING to be insulting, we can't placate them all.

So stopping people from oppressing others is oppressing them? Fun how some people can twist anything to suit themselves. :rolleyes:

Stopping people from saying "Merry Christmas" is oppressing them IMO. Stopping children from wearing Christmas colors is oppressing them, "secular" education system or not. Funny how some people can ignore anything to suit themselves :rolleyes:

No one has any reason or excuse for going around calling people niggers, fags, etc. anyway, all they are doing is revealing their own stupidity.

Racial insults are one thing. Turning "chairmen" into "chairs", "trashmen" into "sanitation engineers" and "Christmas Pageant" into "Winter Festival" is quite another thing. If PC believers confined themselves to discouraging the terms "******", "kike", etc. (e.g., if they complained about most hip-hop products), I would be in agreement with them. But that's not what they're about, and that's not where they end. To say otherwise is spin.

Stopping people from saying "Merry Christmas" is oppressing them IMO. Stopping children from wearing Christmas colors is oppressing them, "secular" education system or not. Funny how some people can ignore anything to suit themselves :rolleyes:

Link? Who was actually stopped from wearing Christmas colors or saying Merry Christmas? I'd like some evidence of the poor, oppressed majority.


Racial insults are one thing. Turning "chairmen" into "chairs", "trashmen" into "sanitation engineers" and "Christmas Pageant" into "Winter Festival" is quite another thing. If PC believers confined themselves to discouraging the terms "******", "kike", etc. (e.g., if they complained about most hip-hop products), I would be in agreement with them. But that's not what they're about, and that's not where they end. To say otherwise is spin.

Again, what does this have to do with freedom of speech? It appears it's you whining about your right to not be offended? I'm sorry politeness has inconvenienced you, yet again. You poor thing. It must get so tiring making up oppression for yourself.

Stopping people from saying "Merry Christmas" is oppressing them IMO. Stopping children from wearing Christmas colors is oppressing them, "secular" education system or not. Funny how some people can ignore anything to suit themselves :rolleyes:



Racial insults are one thing. Turning "chairmen" into "chairs", "trashmen" into "sanitation engineers" and "Christmas Pageant" into "Winter Festival" is quite another thing. If PC believers confined themselves to discouraging the terms "******", "kike", etc. (e.g., if they complained about most hip-hop products), I would be in agreement with them. But that's not what they're about, and that's not where they end. To say otherwise is spin.

So you are mad that popular culture/language is not going the direction that you wish it to and that public schools are making it so that non-Christians aren't being left out?

I don't know where you live but I've never heard of kids not being allowed to wear Christmas colors, except from you. Also, businesses have every right to make customers feel more welcome by not alienating the non-Christians. It seems the Christians that woudl get angry over this are just being pains in the ass over nothing whatsovever and need to grow thicker skins right?

So you are mad that popular culture/language is not going the direction that you wish it to and that public schools are making it so that non-Christians aren't being left out?

I don't know where you live but I've never heard of kids not being allowed to wear Christmas colors, except from you. Also, businesses have every right to make customers feel more welcome by not alienating the non-Christians. It seems the Christians that woudl get angry over this are just being pains in the ass over nothing whatsovever and need to grow thicker skins right?
You must have missed the memo. There is no right not to be offended EXCEPT if you're a white, straight, Christian male.

You must have missed the memo. There is no right not to be offended EXCEPT if you're a white, straight, Christian male.

From now on, every white man who complains about being racially offended (and in other ways) and oppressed by PC conventions shall be known as a honky.

You must have missed the memo. There is no right not to be offended EXCEPT if you're a white, straight, Christian male.

Stop oppressing me, woman! As a white, straight, Christian male I find your use of the word IF to be offensive, since it implies that other people matter.