NationStates Jolt Archive

The phrase Old Masters is sexist, authors and students are told

Students and academics are being banned from using the term "Old Masters" and "seminal" because of claims they are sexist.

By Martin Beckford, Social Affairs Correspondent

Publishers and universities are outlawing dozens of seemingly innocuous words in case they cause offence.

Banned phrases on the list, which was originally drawn up by sociologists, include Old Masters, which has been used for centuries to refer to great painters - almost all of whom were in fact male.

It is claimed that the term discriminates against women and should be replaced by "classic artists".

The list of banned words was written by the British Sociological Association, whose members include dozens of professors, lecturers and researchers.

The list of allegedly racist words includes immigrants, developing nations and black, while so-called "disablist" terms include patient, the elderly and special needs.

It comes after one council outlawed the allegedly sexist phrase "man on the street", and another banned staff from saying "brainstorm" in case it offended people with epilepsy.

However the list of "sensitive" language is said by critics to amount to unwarranted censorship and wrongly assume that people are offended by words that have been in use for years.

Prof Frank Furedi, a sociologist at the University of Kent, said he was shocked when he saw the extent of the list and how readily academics had accepted it.

"I was genuinely taken aback when I discovered that the term 'Chinese Whisper' was offensive because of its apparently racist connotations. I was moved to despair when I found out that one of my favourite words, 'civilised', ought not be used by a culturally sensitive author because of its alleged racist implications.":rolleyes:

Prof Furedi said that censorship is about the "policing of moral behaviour" by an army of campaign groups, teachers and media organisations who are on a "crusade" to ban certain words and promote their own politically correct alternatives.

He said people should see the efforts to ban certain words as the "coercive regulation" of everyday language and the "closing down of discussions" rather than positive attempts to protect vulnerable groups from offence.

The list of banned words is now sent out to prospective authors by Policy Press, a publisher of social science books and journals based at the University of Bristol, but is also used in many academic institutions.

The University of Bristol's School for Policy Studies recommends the guidelines to help students "challenge heterosexist assumptions", and they are included in a "toolkit" to combat institutional racism included on the University of Leeds' website.

King's College London says they "may provide a good starting point" and Liverpool John Moores University provides a link to them in its students' guide. The Open University said they are an "appropriate source of reference and advice" for students.

Napier University in Edinburgh says the list is "well worth looking at" while the University of East London advises its students they should "attempt to incorporate" it.

Even a secondary school in Norwich includes a link to the list on its website, with the statement: "Students may care to consider how far we inadvertently reproduce inaccurate sexist assumptions in the language we use, both written and spoken."

The list of racist terms features black, which "can be used in a racist sense" and should be changed to "black peoples" or "black communities".

Immigrants is said to have "racist overtones" because of its association with "immigration legislation", while developing nations - intended as a more sensitive replacement for Third World - is "prejudical" because it implies a comparison with developed countries.

Although not included on the Policy Press list, the BSA warns authors against using civilisation because of its "racist overtones that derive from a colonialist perception of the world".

Among the "sexist" terms to be avoided are "seminal" and "disseminate" because they are derived from the word semen and supposedly imply a male-dominated view of the world.

Authors are also told to "avoid using medical labels" when writing about disabled people as this "may promote a view of them as patients".

In addition, the list says "special needs" should be changed to "additional needs", "patient" to "person" and "the elderly" to "older people".

"Able-bodied person" should be replaced with "non-disabled person", it is claimed.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/debates/2988760/The-phrase-Old-Masters-is-sexist-authors-and-students-are-told.html

1. I take my glove off and smack it across the face of the BSA, which SHOULD stand for Ball Sacks, Accepting.

2. Special Needs is ALREADY PC (read Newspeak) for mentally slow. No need to furher PCify it....

3. I like this issue because we can take a bi-partisan stance on it. Conservatives who recoil to their status quo being threatend for (incorrect) change can take offense to this, while Liberals who feel that we should have maximum social freedom and an authority who does not tell us how to behave, can take offense to it.

Somehow, I feel this will simply not be the case. I feel like, since this is radical NSG (read: A place filled with insane Leftists who will shout at the top of their lungs when called on the left-wing bias this place has, yet admit to most people having leftist views here) will instead continue to stuff their fingers in their ears and blindfold themselves and scream "There is no PC agenda! There is no PC agenda!".

Let's watch things unfold, shall we?

Make no mistake gentlemen, this is the implementation of Newspeak. All those in favor of reducing the Authority's power on your thoughts, words and ideas should stand united in opposition to this tyranical crusade against freedom of speech.

"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it." - George Orwell 1984

....

And somewhere in England, The Blessed Chris is reading this in agony.

I hope he finds time to stop by this thread and post here.

So let me get this straight, immigrant is racist? Even though it is a term that isn't talking about a particular group of people.

Do these people have anything better to do?

civilised? And how is that racist? I would say that the people who complied the list think that words such as civilised have some racist tendencies themselves.

So I can't call someone black but I can call him a black person (Yeah that's really different) or a group of them as a black community, yeah I see how that is better.

Not to call some one elderly but old.

Well it just goes to show how the UK is going down the toilet further, lets hope it stays in that country.

[Somehow, I feel this will simply not be the case. I feel like, since this is radical NSG (read: A place filled with insane Leftists who will shout at the top of their lungs when called on the left-wing bias this place has, yet admit to most people having leftist views here) will instead continue to stuff their fingers in their ears and blindfold themselves and scream "There is no PC agenda! There is no PC agenda!".


I'm thinking this entire thread was just an attempt to get this troll in.

In any respect, super PC lists like these get released with regularity. The scope of the organization authoring the list is usually quite small, so the ban generally only extends to professional publications that the organization is responsible for. This ban won't see the outside of a very narrow subset of acadamia. Much ado about nothing. Most likely, none of us will ever be even indirectly affected by this ban, and even if we are, all it will do is cause us pause when reading a sociology publication. To act like this is some grand 1984 censorship is overstating things a tad.

Sometimes, though, I suspect that PC moves like these are all part of some grand conspiracy by dictionary publishers to stay in business.

It is not worth worrying about. The time is fast approaching where the people who currently produce lists of 'naughty' words will have other issues to fill their time and things like this will be forgotten.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/debates/2988760/The-phrase-Old-Masters-is-sexist-authors-and-students-are-told.html

1. I take my glove off and smack it across the face of the BSA, which SHOULD stand for Ball Sacks, Accepting.

2. Special Needs is ALREADY PC (read Newspeak) for mentally slow. No need to furher PCify it....

3. I like this issue because we can take a bi-partisan stance on it. Conservatives who recoil to their status quo being threatend for (incorrect) change can take offense to this, while Liberals who feel that we should have maximum social freedom and an authority who does not tell us how to behave, can take offense to it.

Somehow, I feel this will simply not be the case. I feel like, since this is radical NSG (read: A place filled with insane Leftists who will shout at the top of their lungs when called on the left-wing bias this place has, yet admit to most people having leftist views here) will instead continue to stuff their fingers in their ears and blindfold themselves and scream "There is no PC agenda! There is no PC agenda!".

Let's watch things unfold, shall we?

Make no mistake gentlemen, this is the implementation of Newspeak. All those in favor of reducing the Authority's power on your thoughts, words and ideas should stand united in opposition to this tyranical crusade against freedom of speech.

"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it." - George Orwell 1984

Cute.

First, let me say my reaction is a bit cautious since I can't seem to confirm these allegations anywhere other than at the BNP website and Stormfront. I don't take this particular columnist at his word, especially when it is clear he has an axe to grind.

Further, the article itself appears to concede that these are actually little more than lists of suggestions and guidelines handed out/used at some universities. Other than the author of the article referring to the words as "banned" and the concerns of one professor, there is little meat here.

Unfortunately, the BSA website appears to be inaccessible at this time, so it is difficult to get another perspective on this list, what it says, what is intended by it, etc.

In the meantime, while this story does raise my hackles some as reported, it is still a ridiculously far cry from the "implementation of Newspeak." Get real.

I hate to even take the Newspeak argument seriously enough to posit a counter-argument, but I will nonetheless: Your own quote from Orwell indicates that Newspeak narrows the range of thought (in fact, to the point that thoughcrime is not possible). Can you explain how the existence of this list manages that?

EDIT: BTW, the British Sociological Association is the professional association for sociologists in the United Kingdom. It is neither an evil cabal or a branch of Orwellian government.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/debates/2988760/The-phrase-Old-Masters-is-sexist-authors-and-students-are-told.html

1. I take my glove off and smack it across the face of the BSA, which SHOULD stand for Ball Sacks, Accepting.

2. Special Needs is ALREADY PC (read Newspeak) for mentally slow. No need to furher PCify it....

3. I like this issue because we can take a bi-partisan stance on it. Conservatives who recoil to their status quo being threatend for (incorrect) change can take offense to this, while Liberals who feel that we should have maximum social freedom and an authority who does not tell us how to behave, can take offense to it.

Somehow, I feel this will simply not be the case. I feel like, since this is radical NSG (read: A place filled with insane Leftists who will shout at the top of their lungs when called on the left-wing bias this place has, yet admit to most people having leftist views here) will instead continue to stuff their fingers in their ears and blindfold themselves and scream "There is no PC agenda! There is no PC agenda!".

Let's watch things unfold, shall we?

Make no mistake gentlemen, this is the implementation of Newspeak. All those in favor of reducing the Authority's power on your thoughts, words and ideas should stand united in opposition to this tyranical crusade against freedom of speech.


Having read the article, I see a set of guidelines that are optional. Not very dystopian if you look at it objectively.

Oh no, the horrors of sociologists compiling a list of expressions that they think have mildly bigoted overtones! I feel so repressed by the existence of this list! Darn those all-powerful sociologists, always forcing everyone to do what they say by their vicious, vicious suggestion of ideas! Now some schools are even suggesting students think about the words they choose! How dare they!


*yawn*

Among the "sexist" terms to be avoided are "seminal" and "disseminate" because they are derived from the word semen and supposedly imply a male-dominated view of the world.

Yes, "seminal" and "disseminate" in fact are derived from the word "semen." Alas for the BSA, their Latin illiteracy or, still worse, their inability (or refusal) to refer to etymologies in any standard dictionary, apparently has prevented them from appreciating that "semen" is the Latin word for "seed." Thus, "seminal" = having qualities analogous to a seed, from which other events or ideas spring as if from such a seed. "Disseminate" = scatter about as if sowing seeds. The use of "semen" as the medical term for the male reproductive medium is directly linked to the concept of "seed."

The remainder of the cited report presents so many other absurdities and non-sequiturs that it calls to mind the saying, "Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad."

It is truly sad to witness a formerly great culture in as advanced a state of decay as Britain has now fallen. The (self-appointed) "leaders" of British culture seem to be intent on nothing less than cultural suicide. One may almost wonder why Britain even bothered to defend itself in WWII. Were he to be conjured today, Winston Churchill may well wish to change his nationality. To say nothing of William Shakespeare.

"http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...-are-told.html

1. I take my glove off and smack it across the face of the BSA, which SHOULD stand for Ball Sacks, Accepting.

2. Special Needs is ALREADY PC (read Newspeak) for mentally slow. No need to furher PCify it....

3. I like this issue because we can take a bi-partisan stance on it. Conservatives who recoil to their status quo being threatend for (incorrect) change can take offense to this, while Liberals who feel that we should have maximum social freedom and an authority who does not tell us how to behave, can take offense to it.

Somehow, I feel this will simply not be the case. I feel like, since this is radical NSG (read: A place filled with insane Leftists who will shout at the top of their lungs when called on the left-wing bias this place has, yet admit to most people having leftist views here) will instead continue to stuff their fingers in their ears and blindfold themselves and scream "There is no PC agenda! There is no PC agenda!".

Let's watch things unfold, shall we?

Make no mistake gentlemen, this is the implementation of Newspeak. All those in favor of reducing the Authority's power on your thoughts, words and ideas should stand united in opposition to this tyranical crusade against freedom of speech.

"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it." - George Orwell 1984"

Atlantian Islands is winding us up just a little, gentlemen. English is a flexible language whose taboos will change according to fashion. There are things that you mightn't say in front of your granny, PC things, things that only your sub-culture would understand (such as "emo"). Dakini rues that she can no longer say "gay" because the market for that word has been cornered by "queers" (a word in itself that is perfectly acceptable in some quarters now but it was a pejorative term until quite recently.) Actually, in Australia, schoolboys will say "that's gay!" if they don't like something and "that's sick!" if they do like it.
Does anyone out there have a PC term for dwarf? I refuse to say "Snow White and the seven height challenged mining engineers who say "hi-prostitute, hi-prostitute it's off to work we go!"

I'm not going to lie...I laughed at the reasoning for "brainstorm".

I have never heard someone with epilepsy say "Sometimes I get really bad brainstorms". They're called seizures for a reason.

Oh no, the horrors of sociologists compiling a list of expressions that they think have mildly bigoted overtones! I feel so repressed by the existence of this list! Darn those all-powerful sociologists, always forcing everyone to do what they say by their vicious, vicious suggestion of ideas! Now some schools are even suggesting students think about the words they choose! How dare they!


*yawn*

LOVE. YOUR. WAY. WITH. WORDS. :hail:

Makes me think of the English Literature teacher in South Carolina a few years back who was required to issue a public apology for using the word "niggardly" during a discussion of literary characters and the Wisconsin college prof. who got in trouble when the word appeared in the works of Chaucer.

The English language is doomed if this type of clap trap keeps up. Once you ban words, thought is not far behind.

I won't be concerned until they consider 'taco' to be mildly dirty and rename my signature foodstuff 'Schmoo'

Don't worry, I'm sure they won't ban the word "Leftist."

But universities and authors following a recommended list and banning the words contained in them voluntarily from a nongovernmental organization of professional sociologists is a far cry from Big Brother is Rising and the introduction of Newspeak.

If this was mandated by the British government, then yeah, that would be a problem. But again, it's a voluntary measure taken by universities and authors and they have the right to do that. Unless of course you also believe that historically ethnic or unisex colleges and universities ought to be integrated by force.

Maybe the OP misread a few words and thought it was the British Socialist Association responsible for the list.

:D

I'm thinking this entire thread was just an attempt to get this troll in.Yeah, let's put it back back under it's /b/ridge.
In the meantime, while this story does raise my hackles some as reported, it is still a ridiculously far cry from the "implementation of Newspeak." Get real.Didn't even refer to the UK as Airstrip One for cryin' out loud.
Having read the article, I see a set of guidelines that are optional. Not very dystopian if you look at it objectively.Why would you want to do that?

Special needs doesn't mean mentally slow. It means exactly what it says. Deafness is special need, but in absolutely no way implies 'mentally slow'. What it means is that the person would benefit from a hearing aid, and the lecturer using a microphone-transmitter-thingy - a need that not everyone else would benefit from.

I have to leave soon, but I'll just say one thing before I return.

*Ahem*

It's the Telegraph...

Omgz, not Newspeak!!!!!

<Torygraph snip>

Somehow, I feel this will simply not be the case. I feel like, since this is radical NSG (read: A place filled with insane Leftists who will shout at the top of their lungs when called on the left-wing bias this place has, yet admit to most people having leftist views here) will instead continue to stuff their fingers in their ears and blindfold themselves and scream "There is no PC agenda! There is no PC agenda!".

Let's watch things unfold, shall we?
My, my.

The Torygraph blowing a story way out of proportion?

TAi claiming 'left-wing bias'?

TAi claiming that a small report by a single institution is the downfall of British society?

I am shocked. Shocked I tell thee.

EDIT: TAi, you might as well as come out with a devastating report that "Grauniad writer is slightly incensed by the Conservatives!", or that "The Sun features boobs on Page 3 Shocker!".

And for your further education, I'm setting you the homework of discovering what the word 'bias' means. A little clue: it doesn't mean 'the majority'. A molecule of water has two hydrogen atoms joined to a single oxygen atom. This does not mean that water has a 'hydrogen bias'. Similarly, though NS:G has more people with political leanings to the lib-left, the site does not have a bias, it has a majority. If you can show how OMAC, the mods, or any other part of the site, is discriminating against those without lib-left views, then you can start railing about the lefties. Till then, matey, I'd brush up on that English language.

What do you call an African-British person if you can't call them black? Im curious. Afro-English? Afro-Anglo? African-English/African-British doesnt seem to roll off the tongue. Maybe just because Ive never said it before.

What do you call an African-British person if you can't call them black?
A British citizen is called a 'Brit'.

It doesn't matter what colour of skin they have.

A British citizen is called a 'Brit'.

It doesn't matter what colour of skin they have.

but what if you have to describe what you look like?

Lol, its definitely retarded, even enough that I could read about it from an Estonian newspaper. Although if it is not widely enforced, then its not really practical problem, but that doesn't change the fact that its retarded.

but what if you have to describe what you look like?

Having found the actual lists on the web**, this is a good example of how TAI's article lied to us.

Here is the entry regarding "black":

Black

Black is a -term that embraces people who experience structural and institutional discrimination because of their skin colour and is often used politically to refer to people of African, Caribbean and South Asian origin to imply solidarity against racism.

The term originally took on political connotations with the rise of black activism in the USA in the 1960s when it was reclaimed as a source of pride and identity in opposition to the many negative connotations relating to the word "black" in the English language (black leg, black list etc.). In the UK however, there is an on-going debate about the use of this term to define South Asian peoples because of the existence of diverse South Asian cultural identities. In the USA, the term 'people of colour' is increasingly used instead of, or alongside black.

Some South Asian groups in Britain object to the use of the word "black" being applied to them. Some sociologists argue that it also conflates a number of ethnic groups that should be regarded separately - Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Indians and so on.

Whilst there are many differences between and within each of the groups, the inclusive term black refers to those who have a shared history of European colonialism, neo-colonialism, imperialism, ethnocentrism and racism. One solution to this is to refer to "black peoples", "black communities" etc., in the plural to imply that there are a variety of such groups.
It is also important to be aware of the fact that in some contexts "black" can also be used in a racist sense.

The capitalisation of the letter "B" in the term "Black British", "British Asian" are shifting ground and it should be stressed that social scientists need to be very clear that the use of these terms does not prioritise nor indeed conflate ethnicity and citizenship.

See, not as dogmatic nor unreasonable (let alone Orwellian) as we were led to believe, especially as the document starts by saying:

The following guidelines were originally drawn up by the BSA Black Women’s Sub-Committee and revised by the BSA Race Forum. They represent the views of these groups on the common uses of these terms in everyday language and by social scientists when writing about ethnicity and race.

Language and terminology are changeable and contested. Words can reinforce beliefs and prejudices, but can also be used to challenge racism. As such, it must be recognised that the meaning of these terms will be subject to revision and/or change at a faster rate than these or any other guidelines or sources may be issued.

This is not intended to be an exhaustive list or a definitive guide. We would refer you to the short list of sources at the end of the guidelines for further information about the meaning of these terms and how they have changed over time.

These guidelines should act as a prompt to social scientists and others to consider carefully their choice of terminology.

As some of us suggested was the case, these are merely guidelines by an organization seeking to prompt some thought about choice of terminology. Not the implementation of Newspeak.

I'll give one last example, regarding the allegation that "immigrant" is "banned" because it is "racist":

Immigrants

Under some circumstances people could correctly be described as immigrants - if they are in-migrants from one place to another. However, this is not a useful term for referring to ethnic groups which have been in Britain since the early post-war period and in the British context has racist overtones, being associated with immigration legislation.


See, not as it was protrayed by TAI's article nor an example of Orwellian thought.

**Here are the dreaded "lists" in full:
# Language and the BSA: Ethnicity & Race (http://www.britsoc.co.uk/NR/rdonlyres/4E70B7F7-58A1-43AB-A414-77F929A954D2/534/EqualityandDiversity_LanguageandtheBSA_RaceMar05.doc) (Word format)
# Language and the BSA: Sex and Gender (http://www.britsoc.co.uk/NR/rdonlyres/4E70B7F7-58A1-43AB-A414-77F929A954D2/533/EqualityandDiversity_LanguageandtheBSA_SexandGende.doc)(Word format)
# Language and the BSA: Non-Disablist (http://www.britsoc.co.uk/NR/rdonlyres/4E70B7F7-58A1-43AB-A414-77F929A954D2/536/EqualityandDiversity_LanguageandtheBSA_NonDisablis.doc) (Word format)

Olmedreca;14029761']Lol, its definitely retarded, even enough that I could read about it from an Estonian newspaper. Although if it is not widely enforced, then its not really practical problem, but that doesn't change the fact that its retarded.

Setting aside the fact that the lists (correctly) suggest you not use terms like "retarded," what exactly about the existence or content of these lists are "retarded"?

Setting aside the fact that the lists (correctly) suggest you not use terms like "retarded," what exactly about the existence or content of these lists are "retarded"?

I would estimate that it's the perception of Political Correctness Gone Wild TAI has spread that makes it "retarded".

Setting aside the fact that the lists (correctly) suggest you not use terms like "retarded," what exactly about the existence or content of these lists are "retarded"?

Ah, yes, evil term, list is "mentally disabled" or something.
Lulz:

SEXIST:
man-made
NON-SEXIST:
synthetic artificial manufactured

DISABLIST:
Victim of
Crippled by
Suffering from
Afflicted by
NON-DISABLIST:
Person who has / person with

DISABLIST:
Handicap
NON-DISABLIST:
Disability

DISABLIST:
Able bodied person
NON-DISABLIST:
Non-disabled person

DISABLIST:
Patient
NON-DISABLIST:
Person



Civilised/Civilisation

This term can still carry racist overtones that derive from a colonialist perception of the world. It is often associated with social Darwinist thought and is full of implicit value judgements and ignorance of the history of the non-industrialised world. However, in some cases, such as the work of Norbert Elias, civilisation takes on a different meaning without racist overtones.

Developing Nations/Less developed countries

These terms are used to refer to less-industrialised, non-western or Southern parts of the world. They are questionable where an implicit hierarchy with developed countries is placed at the top.

Having found the actual lists on the web**, this is a good example of how TAI's article lied to us....

The thing is that TAI, who certainly considers himself intelligent - and I don't disagree with that - is victim to, put simply, marketing.

The Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mail are notorious for placing these stories, which completely misrepresent the facts in order to fit into a worldview they promote simply to sell newspapers.

People like reading about welfare scroungers, PC loonies and paedophiles because it confirms their righteous superiority.

It's a serious problem in today's world.

www.flatearthnews.net

I always remember 2 stories in relation to all this.

On being asked whether satellite television was partly responsible for the end of the Soviet Union, a diplomat replied 'yes, but not in the way you think, it wasn't CNN that changed our minds because all Russians know the news lies, it was the advertisements, we couldn't argue with the cars, the televisions, the supermarkets, all clearly showing that life could be better. In the West you believe the news and not the ads, here it was the other way around'.

I've written that in my own words.

Second was from one of the many depressing books I read about the Cultural Revolution where the author wrote, again in my own words.

'We read the news closely, not because it told us the truth in words but it told us which way the wind was blowing. If the news warned of a counter-revolutionary plot in Shanghai then we all knew to be on our best behaviour because, surely, a counter-revolutionary would be found, innocent or not'.

The point is, we've been somewhat lulled into believing that the media is authoritative, that it's stating facts, we've somewhat forgotten to check things.

In many ways, this is the wonder of the Internet because in a pool of 50 or so people, there'll always be someone like you who's willing to search out the actual information and share with everyone else.

The truth will out, out damn spot!

My, my.

The Torygraph blowing a story way out of proportion?

TAi claiming 'left-wing bias'?

TAi claiming that a small report by a single institution is the downfall of British society?

I am shocked. Shocked I tell thee.Maybe he meant "The sun (newspaper) is setting on (preying on, attacking, etc.) Britain as it adopts Newspeak." Surely the Sun's vocabulary seeks to limit the thoughts you have?

Only thing I have a problem with is terms like as "Old Masters". I'd argue that it's been around so long that the term itself is accepted to refer to particular period and as such has lost it's male connotations. When I hear the phrase, I think of the paintings famous from that era, not some weird kneejerk 'ohhh...it's only men who are great painters' reaction. I'm surprised they didn't say it was ageist as well.

Similarly, take the term 'manhole cover' - I think of, well, a manhole cover. I certainly don't break it down into it's separate words and then assemble it into an idea. Cause then I'd start thinking of a buttplug. And now you are too.

For some terms, it is clear why they have bad connotations, but things like 'special needs', 'elderly', 'brainstorm' are really harmless. Notwithstanding TAi's and the Torygraph's blatant exaggerating of this report, it seems that sometimes people consider something 'possibly offensive' regardless of whether anyone has actually complained about the term.

And I feel the term 'racist' is bandied about too often.

I'm starting to liek these guidelines.


"In the downwash from the SH-3 Sea Non-Democratically Elected Leader taxiing with a learning disability towards the hangar, two non-disabled seapersons were carrying a Mk.81 parachute additional needs bomb across the deck..."

Yes, "seminal" and "disseminate" in fact are derived from the word "semen." Alas for the BSA, their Latin illiteracy or, still worse, their inability (or refusal) to refer to etymologies in any standard dictionary, apparently has prevented them from appreciating that "semen" is the Latin word for "seed." Thus, "seminal" = having qualities analogous to a seed, from which other events or ideas spring as if from such a seed. "Disseminate" = scatter about as if sowing seeds. The use of "semen" as the medical term for the male reproductive medium is directly linked to the concept of "seed."


Hence, as a general rule, never listen to anything sociologists say about etymology.

Has anyone noticed none of the words they're suggesting banning are of Arabic origin? I suspect the BSA is a front for a Muslim terrorist organization.

Students and academics are being banned from using the term "Old Masters" and "seminal" because of claims they are sexist.
.......
The list of banned words was written by the British Sociological Association, whose members include dozens of professors, lecturers and researchers.
So students are professors, lectures and researchers?

Cute.

First, let me say my reaction is a bit cautious since I can't seem to confirm these allegations anywhere other than at the BNP website and Stormfront. I don't take this particular columnist at his word, especially when it is clear he has an axe to grind.

Stormfront, you say? A neonazi forum doesn't seem like the right place to pick up themes for NSG threads. It would explain The Atlantian Islands' thread about Kaliningrad, though.

What a load of nonsense! It's a list of suggested guidelines from and for an association of sociologists, part of whose job is to be way over-aware of how social implications of words. Academic organizations come up with stuff like this all the time, and nobody uses them.

Stormfront, you say? A neonazi forum doesn't seem like the right place to pick up themes for NSG threads. It would explain The Atlantian Islands' thread about Kaliningrad, though.

Stormfront isn't the worst place to go unless you're allowed somewhere else.

I feel like, since this is radical NSG (read: A place filled with insane Leftists who will shout at the top of their lungs when called on the left-wing bias this place has, yet admit to most people having leftist views here) will instead continue to stuff their fingers in their ears and blindfold themselves and scream "There is no PC agenda! There is no PC agenda!".
What you should have said is:
This is NSG, a place in which the posters refuse to eat up your bullshit with a spoon and ask for more, but rather look deeper into issues and ask critical question (amidst an ocean of spam, it's true).

Then you would have been right.

You could even have done some research yourself!

...but no, you chose to be wrong.

Make no mistake gentlemen, this is the implementation of Newspeak.
Oh so wrong.

"may provide a good starting point"

Holy smokes... :eek:

Thats is double plus ungood.

Orwell was not a prescient as we often credit him with being. He didn't understand that the best way to control a people was not through constantly observing them and silencing the dissenters, no, that would be too hard. An active campaign to control people takes too much time, effort and resources. No, almost by chance, our societies have done something that Big Brother could not imagine. We have invaded and obliviated the personal consciousness with reproducible mass media. We are eradicating traditional modes of expression by declaring words harmful or hurtful. Even within mass media, the single most individual, personal experience...more intimate than sex...the book is dying. It's battery powered successor removes that personal intimacy--it removes it and connects you to "whisper nets". Can you live your own life anymore? I wonder.

Meh...I guess I'll just keep drinking beer, my own beer, and live out my life. There ain't jack I can do, and bitching about it won't change anything.

[/tirade]

Pass the bottle.

Stormfront, you say? A neonazi forum doesn't seem like the right place to pick up themes for NSG threads.
Oh really? Not that this article was taken from Stormfront, in fact if you would have used the eyes you are blessed with, you could have found my source back to The Telegraph, but tell me, where (in your personal opinion) "seems like a right place to pick up themes for NSG threads??"

We should be able to debate any issue regardless if it makes your panties bunch up in the place where your balls should be.

It would explain The Atlantian Islands' thread about Kaliningrad, though.
Oh would it? How so? Are you actually claiming anyone opposes the Soviet occupation and Ethnic Cleansing in Eastern/Central Europe is a Neo-Nazi? You wouldn't dare.

Well, such bold statements could spark a nice flamewar. I already see some glowing embers, ready to ignite into a full blaze.

Eh which universities are actually implimenting this?

Oh really? Not that this article was taken from Stormfront, in fact if you would have used the eyes you are blessed with, you could have found my source back to The Telegraph, but tell me, where (in your personal opinion) "seems like a right place to pick up themes for NSG threads??"

We should be able to debate any issue regardless if it makes your panties bunch up in the place where your balls should be.

Only the Axe grinding columnist at the Telegraph saw fit to spin this non-issue into a story, a fault that he shares with the Stormfront crowd. And you, eager and chomping at the bit, decided to throw all pretense of actual journalism to the wind, and mindlessly parrot this dubious and ill-researched article.

Oh would it? How so? Are you actually claiming anyone opposes the Soviet occupation and Ethnic Cleansing in Eastern/Central Europe is a Neo-Nazi? You wouldn't dare.

Your words, not his. Kalinnigrad is a non-issue, and will always be a non-issue, just like this list of recommendations by the British Sociological Association.

And why the hell would you not support that, TAI? I don't, but you supported regimes in South America that outright killed people for their words, which only differs from this in location, intensity and in authority, not in principle. If you support one principle, you support the same principle applied to something else. Surely, as the coherent person that you are, you support this. Or you think these guys are too lenient? You can't, after all, support thought and speech patrol in one case and not support it in the other. As I said, you are too coherent for that.

And why the hell would you not support that, TAI? I don't, but you supported regimes in South America that outright killed people for their words, which only differs from this in intensity and in authority. Surely, as the coherent person that you are, you support this.

What is allowed and what is needed varies between different socio-political climates. What is necessary to preserve a democratic capitalist nation from falling into the clutches of Communism/Socialism/Soviet Totalitarianism is quite different from what is allowed and tolerated in a stable democratic society.

What is allowed and what is needed varies between different socio-political climates. What is necessary to preserve a democratic capitalist nation from falling into the clutches of Communism/Socialism/Soviet Totalitarianism is quite different from what is allowed and tolerated in a stable democratic society.

If you support one act, you support all others. No exceptions. Even because there was no "communist threat" and the regimes you supported are anything BUT democratic. You supported them. You supported the tortures, the deaths, the rapes, the blood, the tears, the anger, the sadness, the destruction caused by them. You supported it all. I can only assume you're complaining about the fact that they DON'T kill people who disagree with them, as you obviously support killing people who disagree with the authorities in charge.

Because you're a coherent person.

Again:

You supported them. You supported the tortures, the deaths, the rapes, the blood, the tears, the anger, the sadness, the destruction caused by them. You supported it all.

*SNIP*
So the article is a lie and the British Sociological Association is not replacing words they find insensitive?


Kalinnigrad is a non-issue, and will always be a non-issue, just like this list of recommendations by the British Sociological Association.
Your opinion, not mine.

So the article is a lie and the British Sociological Association is not replacing words they find insensitive?

Study basic Ethymology, or even basic Linguistics, so you can learn how utterly stupid the expression "this group/organization is replacing words" is.

So, is the term seminary still okay? It has the same etymology as seminal.

Maybe that's for the next edition of the Newspeak Dictionary. I for one look forward to working on it.

If you support one act, you support all others. No exceptions. I can only assume you're complaining about the fact that they DON'T kill people who disagree with them, as you obviously support killing people who disagree with the authorities in charge.

Because you're a coherent person.
Again, you are wrong. What is allowd varies depending on the socio-political climate in the respective region/country.

For example, the European Enlightenment produced the idea that if a government is unjust, tyranical or fails to upholds it's duties, it is not only the right of the people to strike it down, but their duty. This does not apply if the government is just, checked and upholding it's duties, so what is "right" and "allowed" depends entirely on the socio-political climate in the respective region/country.

You supported them. You supported the tortures, the deaths, the rapes, the blood, the tears, the anger, the sadness, the destruction caused by them. You supported it all.
Spare me your emotional drivel. I have only time for the facts.

So the article is a lie and the British Sociological Association is not replacing words they find insensitive?


Yes.

Again, you are wrong. What is allowd varies depending on the socio-political climate in the respective region/country.

For example, the European Enlightenment produced the idea that if a government is unjust, tyranical or fails to upholds it's duties, it is not only the right of the people to strike it down, but their duty. This does not apply if the government is just, checked and upholding it's duties, so what is "right" and "allowed" depends entirely on the socio-political climate in the respective region/country.

The right and duty of ITS people. And they do not have the right to EVER oppress people, like you support other people doing.

You supported the coups, and you still do. You supported the tortures, the deaths, the rapes, the blood, the tears, the anger, the sadness, the destruction caused by them. You supported it all, and you still do. That is the kind of person you are. You are a person that supports torture, death and rape. It's a statement of fact. Anyone that supports any dictatorship supports exactly this. And you do support the dictatorships. You are this kind of person. You likely won't admit it, but you support them because it gives you pleasure. Why else would anyone support dictatorships, and ergo support torture, rape and death, like you do?

The right and duty of ITS people. And they do not have the right to EVER oppress people, like you support other people doing.
Not being able to buy food because the Marxist government has destroyed your economy IS suffering.

Also, it is the right and duty of anti-Communists of the world, to look out for others who are suffering under unjust Communism. It was the least America could do to help deliver Chileans from the Marxists.
*SNIPPED EMOTIONAL DRIVEL*
Spare me your soap opera. It may get you a few tears from 13 year old girls, but not from me.

In the battle between emotion and reason, reason shall always prevail.

Spare me your emotional drivel. I have only time for the facts.

Fact: Pinochet murdered more than 3,000 people and tortured several others.

Fact: You support him.

Conclusion: You support the murder of more than 3,000 people and torture of several others.

Fact: You support the murder of more than 3,000 people and torture of several others.

Fact: 9/11 filled all these criteria.

Conclusion: You cheered when the towers fell.

You can't do anything about it, I know, it's just the kind of person you are.

Not being able to buy food because the Marxist government has destroyed your economy IS suffering.

Spare me your soap opera. It may get you a few tears from 13 year old girls, but not from me.

In the battle between emotion and reason, reason shall always prevail.

And reason states that he who supports unlawful, unwarranted slaughter or torture of another human being will support it no matter the case. You can't support dictatorships in South America without supporting them in Germany, Russia, Afghanistan... I mean, you ARE a coherent person after all, are you not?

Furthermore, were the sovereign people of Chile to want Allende out, they would have done it themselves.

And reason states that he who supports unlawful slaughter of another human being will support it no matter the case.
The fight between Communism and anti-Communism was not unlawful, it was a fight between which system would prevail and was inevitable. Neither could exist without defeating the other.

Furthermore, were the sovereign people of Chile to want Allende out, they would have done it themselves.
This may be breaking news to someone like you who clearly looks at the world with his horse blinders on, but the Chilean Military is made up of sovereign people of Chile.

The fight between Communism and anti-Communism was not unlawful, it was a fight between which system would prevail and was inevitable. Neither could exist without defeating the other.


This may be breaking news to someone like you who clearly looks at the world with his horse blinders on, but the Chilean Military is made up of sovereign people of Chile.

The MAJORITY of the people of Chile is made up of MORE sovereign people of Chile than the Chilean Military aided by the American one.

And the dictatorships were, yes, unlawful. You support them. So, you support what they did.

No matter what.

Fact: Pinochet murdered more than 3,000 people and tortured several others.

Fact: You support him.

Fact: You support the murder of more than 3,000 people and torture of several others.

You can't do anything about it, I know, it's just the kind of person you are.
Pinochet (and by extension the US, Great Britain and France) "murdered" Communists in Chile just the same way that they "murdered" Communists in Afghanistan. Unfortunatly for you, this isn't murder but rather anti-Communist foreign powers backing sovereign leaders/people/nations against Marxist/Soviet influence, invasion, totalitarian and control.

Welcome to the geo-politics of the Cold War. I wouldn't suggest diving into it with a weak stomach or a patch of hair where your balls used to be.

The MAJORITY of the people of Chile is made up of MORE sovereign people of Chile than the Chilean Military aided by the American one.
After Pinochet resumed elections (and by this time it is fair to say that many were tired of having the same leader in power for so long and wanted something new) in Chile and was voted out of power, he still recieved almost half of the vote. That shows that there were plenty soveriegn people of Chile who supported him, not just the military.

Pinochet (and by the extent the US, Great Britain and France) "murdered" Communists in Chile just the same way that they "murdered" Communists in Afghanistan. Unfortunatly for you, this isn't murder but rather anti-Communist foreign powers backing sovereign leaders/people/nations against Marxist/Soviet influence, invasion, totalitarian and control.

Welcome to the geo-politics of the Cold War. I wouldn't suggest diving into it with a weak stomach or a patch of hair where your balls used to be.

No, they WERE murder, yes. Illegal regime, killing of people, ergo, killing of people illegally. And you support it.

You're just that kind of person.

The kind of person who is about to get modded.

No.
Actually, yes. I've made an arguement above and you've just shouted your emotional crap and posted using CAPS. You are handing me the debate, Heikoku. For that I thank you.
The kind of person who is about to get modded.
*yawn*

After Pinochet resumed elections (and by this time it is fair to say that many were tired of having the same leader in power for so long and wanted something new) in Chile and was voted out of power, he still recieved almost half of the vote. That shows that there were plenty soveriegn people of Chile who supported him, not just the military.

Still doesn't mean you should have put him into power, even assuming the elections WERE free and fair with him in power. "Almost half" is, by definition, as I'm assuming you know, not a majority.

Actually, yes. I've made an arguement above and you've just shouted your emotional crap and posted using CAPS. You are handing me the debate, Heikoku. For that I thank you.

*yawn*

And you decided to use one word in which I used caps to dodge the point. My point is you support murder and torture of other human beings, because you support the illegal regimes in South America.

to dodge the point.
There was nothing to dodge. You havn't said anything substantial to this.
Pinochet (and by extention the US, Great Britain and France) "murdered" Communists in Chile just the same way that they "murdered" Communists in Afghanistan. Unfortunatly for you, this isn't murder but rather anti-Communist foreign powers backing sovereign leaders/people/nations against Marxist/Soviet influence, invasion, totalitarian and control.

Welcome to the geo-politics of the Cold War. I wouldn't suggest diving into it with a weak stomach or a patch of hair where your balls used to be.

There was nothing to dodge. You havn't said anything substantial to this.

Oh, gee. Where to start?

There was a coup. In and of itself illegal. Most people fighting against Pinochet were fighting for democracy. For freedom of the press, for the right not to be tortured. You trying to go "COMMIES, ALL OF THEM!" at them is but your attempt to rationalize the enjoyment you derive from their deaths and suffering.

Oh, gee. Where to start?

There was a coup. In and of itself illegal. Most people fighting against Pinochet were fighting for democracy. For freedom of the press, for the right not to be tortured. You trying to go "COMMIES, ALL OF THEM!" at them is but your attempt to rationalize the enjoyment you derive from their deaths and suffering.
Sorry, (actually I'm not because it's your fault) but you just totally ignored all of this:

Pinochet (and by extension the US, Great Britain and France) "murdered" Communists in Chile just the same way that they "murdered" Communists in Afghanistan. Unfortunatly for you, this isn't murder but rather anti-Communist foreign powers backing sovereign leaders/people/nations against Marxist/Soviet influence, invasion, totalitarian and control.

Welcome to the geo-politics of the Cold War. I wouldn't suggest diving into it with a weak stomach or a patch of hair where your balls used to be.

Sorry, (actually I'm not because it's your fault) but you just totally ignored all of this:

No I didn't:

Yes, it is murder, mainly because it was done by illegitimate regimes. And mainly because those forces you call "commies" were fighting AGAINST the dictatorship rather than FOR communism.

There's logical things not to say (words such as ******, kike, chink, spick, and the like), and there are things that are really taking it too far. But seeing as it's not from a government entity, I see little to worry about.

There's logical things not to say (words such as ******, kike, chink, spick, and the like), and there are things that are really taking it too far. But seeing as it's not from a government entity, I see little to worry about.

That was TAI making clear his SUPPORT for it. I mean, he does support regimes that curb free speech, after all, and he is a coherent person.

Oh my. How silly.

And people still miss how it's voluntary compliance from universities and authors of a guideline published by a non-governmental association of sociologists. Not a government regulation.

Looks like the Torygraph and TAI have succeeded in fast-talking NSGers into making a big deal out of nothing.

And people still miss how it's voluntary compliance from universities and authors of a guideline published by a non-governmental association of sociologists. Not a government regulation.

Everyone knows that the sociologists are the secret masters of the world. ;)

Everyone knows that the sociologists are the secret masters of the world. ;)

TAI probably read the BSA as British Socialists Association, hence this diatribe thread.

;)

And people still miss how it's voluntary compliance from universities and authors of a guideline published by a non-governmental association of sociologists. Not a government regulation.
Your arguement fails in assuming that I had mentioned the government at all in my OP, which I infact did not. You're arguement also fails because you are saying:

"Well since it's not the government doing it and instead just a organization that directly influences our universities it's not bad and should not be opposed."

It should still be opposed.

Looks like the Torygraph and TAI have succeeded in fast-talking NSGers into making a big deal out of nothing.
Looks like you suceeded in running the risk of failure, and then failing.

TAI probably read the BSA as British Socialists Association, hence this diatribe thread.

;)
Sorry, but you already used that joke:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14029643&postcount=15

Nobody laughed (nor responded) to it the first time.

What is allowed and what is needed varies between different socio-political climates. What is necessary to preserve a democratic capitalist nation from falling into the clutches of Communism/Socialism/Soviet Totalitarianism is quite different from what is allowed and tolerated in a stable democratic society.Hoho, we're not talking about Chile or Brazil here, are we?

Hoho, we're not talking about Chile or Brazil here, are we?

Danke schön, Laerod, und ja, Brazil und Chile zum scprechen... ;)

(I'm fucking SURE I mangled the German in that last part.)

That was TAI making clear his SUPPORT for it. I mean, he does support regimes that curb free speech, after all, and he is a coherent person.No, TAI is only in support of it if it's done in the name of capitalism, preferable accompanied by violent actions towards dissenters. If it's done for the purpose of making people be nice to eachother, it's completely unacceptable.

No, TAI is only in support of it if it's done in the name of capitalism, preferable accompanied by violent actions towards dissenters. If it's done for the purpose of making people be nice to eachother, it's completely unacceptable.

But then he wouldn't be a coherent person. :confused:

Your arguement fails in assuming that I had mentioned the government at all in my OP, which I infact did not.

Yet you implied the government with this cute little hyperbole:

Make no mistake gentlemen, this is the implementation of Newspeak. All those in favor of reducing the Authority's power on your thoughts, words and ideas should stand united in opposition to this tyranical crusade against freedom of speech.

And what do you exactly mean by "The Authority" hmm? Because if you're going to shift the goalpost and try to claim it's the BSA that you were referring to, that's a laugh riot considering the BSA as far as anyone recalls has less powers than the U.N. General Assembly outside of sociological circles.

You're arguement also fails because you are saying:

"Well since it's not the government doing it and instead just a organization that directly influences our universities it's not bad and should not be opposed."

It should still be opposed.

Again, the BSA has less power than even the U.N. General Assembly. What can the BSA do if they universities and authors didn't comply hmm? Make a poo poo amongst sociological circles?

Looks like you suceeded in running the risk of failure, and then failing.

And it looks like you're continuing the Kimchi tradition of selective hearing and punch-drunk persistence in the face of constant refutations.

No, TAI is only in support of it if it's done in the name of capitalism, preferable accompanied by violent actions towards dissenters. If it's done for the purpose of making people be nice to eachother, it's completely unacceptable.

It makes sense. Being nice to people smacks of Leftism after all.

Your arguement fails in assuming that I had mentioned the government at all in my OP, which I infact did not. You're arguement also fails because you are saying:

"Well since it's not the government doing it and instead just a organization that directly influences our universities it's not bad and should not be opposed."

It should still be opposed.


So - who exactly did you mean when you said "Britain... adopts Newspeak"? Perhaps you were suggesting that the nation, as a whole, were voluntarily choosing a new direction?

No?

Wait - that wouldn't fit the 'Authority' comments... so - who were these 'Authorities'? Apparently, you feel that someone is forcing a new direction, where is that pressure coming from? If it's coming from the people themselves... there's no question of 'authorities', and it's a democratic movement, so hardly to be opposed... no?

Heikoku, TAI, just making sure you've seen this:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14031205&postcount=10

What is allowed and what is needed varies between different socio-political climates. What is necessary to preserve a democratic capitalist nation from falling into the clutches of Communism/Socialism/Soviet Totalitarianism is quite different from what is allowed and tolerated in a stable democratic society.

You left out anarchism TAI (and it is right that you should as anarchism is anti-totalitarian by definition) However I think that you have made a holy cow of "democratic capitalism" which I regard as an oxymoron to some extent. The more capitalist a society becomes, the less democratic and the more plutocratic it becomes. Just because everyone can vote every 2-4 years doesn't mean that it's particularly democratic. Rupert Murdoch doesn't even need to vote to influence/control our thoughts - as pointed out by several wise posters.
Likewise one can have democratic socialism up to a point - the point being that there is no "vanguard party" forcing 'PC views' down everyone's throats.

Your arguement fails in assuming that I had mentioned the government at all in my OP, which I infact did not. You're arguement also fails because you are saying:

"Well since it's not the government doing it and instead just a organization that directly influences our universities it's not bad and should not be opposed."

It should still be opposed.

Looks like you suceeded in running the risk of failure, and then failing.

*sigh*

Do I really have to expend the effort of going line-by-line through your opening post (including that hysterical and false article) and showing how petty much every line is untrue, misleading, and/or irrelevant?

Your premises were false. This isn't a conspiracy. It isn't a "ban" on words. It isn't any of the things you claimed in your OP.

Show a shred of intellectual honesty and at least admit you've over-reacted based on misleading information.

...Because you're a coherent person.

Again, you are wrong.
truer words have never better written by TAI :tongue:

I'd still really like to see a list of which unis are actually implimenting this, TAI.

Yea, no. If the author of this article wants to put such ludicrous claims to paper, I'd like a couple of sources other than their arse.

Sorry, but you already used that joke:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14029643&postcount=15

Nobody laughed (nor responded) to it the first time.

Have to admit it's hard to top the killer comedy of you trying to imply that Britain is under assault from a left-wing wave of political correctness.

:D

Have to admit it's hard to top the killer comedy of you trying to imply that Britain is under assault from a left-wing wave of political correctness.

:D

I, for one, laughed, and it was WITH you, not AT you...

Just to highlight the fact that media simply tell enormous lies, continuously despite all evidence against...

Link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/23/controversiesinscience.health)


If journalists have any remaining function, it is to help people navigate this world: to try to understand the crushingly dull documents that most people don't have time for, to smoke out the fakes and show how to recognise the genuine article. But we mess up too. The most we can promise is to try not to make the same mistake twice.

So what can you say about a man who makes the same mistake 38 times?

That he's paid to lie?

What should we deduce about the Sunday Telegraph's columnist Christopher Booker?

... a fascinating chapter on Booker's claims about white asbestos. Since 2002, he has published 38 articles on this topic, and every one of them is wrong. He champions the work of John Bridle, who has described himself as "the world's foremost authority on asbestos science". Bridle has claimed to possess an honorary professorship from the Russian Academy of Sciences, to be a consultant to an institute at the University of Glamorgan, the chief asbestos consultant for an asbestos centre in Lisbon, and a consultant to Vale of Glamorgan trading standards department. None of these claims is true.

Lies, lies, lies...

Neither the institute at the University of Glamorgan nor the centre in Lisbon have ever existed. His only relationship with the Glamorgan trading standards department is to have been successfully prosecuted by it for claiming a qualification he does not possess.

We are not talking about trivia here. This is a matter of life and death. How many people might have been exposed to dangerous levels of asbestos dust as a result of reading and believing Booker's columns?

The really serious problem is that people vote in legislation on this sort of rubbish, the industry of lying within government and media is simply entrenched, hence all the pointless 'public reaction' laws we see.

Crime is an area simply....I mean, it's extraordinary the lies we're told, the demands for retribution, the pointless laws...

It's quite tedious to be honest.

A British citizen is called a 'Brit'.

It doesn't matter what colour of skin they have.

No a British citizen is called a pom. :wink:

No a British citizen is called a pom. :wink:

And more than one is called a 'Socialization', but only if there are fewer than five. After that its a 'Tea Party'. Any more than fifty is an 'Invasion'. But only if they're all male. If any of them are female it becomes an 'Brunch'.

EDIT:
Of course, one has to be careful to avoid confusing them with Scots and the Irish. A group of more than three Scots is a 'Rebellion', whereas between 2-4 Irishmen is a 'Fistfight', and after that a 'Brawl'. The Welsh, of course, come in flocks.

I have only time for the facts.

Yet they always seem to elude you.

It should still be opposed

Well if you ever happen to be doing any academic work in Britain you can happily oppose the Orwellian evils of the BSA by steadfastly ignoring their suggestions. You'll have to risk them thinking you're not a very nice person, but I'm sure you'd be willing to pay such a high price in the name of free speech. Thank you, TAi, for saving us from the horrors of a group of sociologists telling us what words they think have negative connotations.

Man, is it just me or is this anti-PC crusade thing just the new PC?

Man, is it just me or is this anti-PC crusade thing just the new PC?

I'm kind of looking forward to the rants about the anti-PC crowd going too far. It'll be amusing.

Frankly, the anti-anti-PC people are already beginning to bug me.

I will say what I want to say, in exactly the way I want to say it, with no regard to what either the PC or anti-PC crowd thinks. If that alienates me, then so be it.

Meh. I prefer to word my statements in a way that minimizes potential misunderstandings. Not that I am always successful mind you.

I knew it. The day has come where the English no longer speak English.

I knew it. The day has come where the English no longer speak English.I knew that ever since I saw Beowulf in its original form.

I knew it. The day has come where the English no longer speak English.

Dude, you're either joking or you need me to teach you Linguistics.

Heikoku, TAI, just making sure you've seen this:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14031205&postcount=10

Ok, saw it. Thanks.

I knew it. The day has come where the English no longer speak English.

Prithee sir, speakest thou ye olde Englishe?

Frankly, the anti-anti-PC people are already beginning to bug me.
It's the anti-pro-anti-pro-anti-PC crowd that bugs me :p

Meh. I prefer to word my statements in a way that minimizes potential misunderstandings. Not that I am always successful mind you.

What do you mean?





:p

Prithee sir, speakest thou ye olde Englishe?

You address a barbarian of the Southern Wastes, crude of speech and manner, forgive me if I cannot answer in your tongue.

Does anyone out there have a PC term for dwarf? I refuse to say "Snow White and the seven height challenged mining engineers who say "hi-prostitute, hi-prostitute it's off to work we go!"

The polite term for a dwarf is "dwarf". Or "little person".

Frankly, the anti-anti-PC people are already beginning to bug me.

This (http://www.amazon.com/Myth-Political-Correctness-Conservative-Education/dp/0822317133) just may be your new favorite book.

You address a barbarian of the Southern Wastes, crude of speech and manner, forgive me if I cannot answer in your tongue.

*attempts to insult your parentage in old Gaelic*
*does not know any old Gaelic*

For those who aren't quite aware of how "PC gone mad!" works in the UK, let me demonstrate how it does:

1) A group of academics or a local council proposes something like what is in the OP, usually in the full knowlege that it is not going to get incorporated into the English language.
2) (In most cases) representatives of the group who is supposed to benefit from the proposal quickly issues a press release describing it as nonsense.
3) The newspapers go Bat Fuck Insane, decide that it is obvious that the group mentioned in 2) are plotting to take over Britain, and yet more evidence of how the liberal PC bleeding heart communist paedophile Labour government is evil (which is true) and we need either the Tories, UKIP or Jeremy Clarkson to save us (which is not).
4) Half the public believes it to be true.
5) Repeat from 1).

Although I have to say it is a brilliant populist press campaign. Because what thay are campaigning against doesn't exist (or is something else completely unrelated, see winterval) there's no way thay can 'win' against political correctness, which means thay can print shit pretty much eternally. It's one reason why I don't like much of the British media.

Out of interest, considering that everywhere here is now preparing for Christmas, how long before our first 'War on Christmas' thread appears?

The polite term for a dwarf is "dwarf". Or "little person".
This is the problem: much of what I would describe as common good manners or politeness has been tainted with the "PC gone mad" label.

Out of interest, considering that everywhere here is now preparing for Christmas, how long before our first 'War on Christmas' thread appears?

Did we have one last year? I must have missed it, but I can't wait for the whole people shouldn't be allowed to participate in their religion thing.

*Begins buying popcorn* Ah who am I kidding I will be jumping in that thread, does anyone want some free popcorn?

Did we have one last year? I must have missed it, but I can't wait for the whole people shouldn't be allowed to participate in their religion thing.

*Begins buying popcorn* Ah who am I kidding I will be jumping in that thread, does anyone want some free popcorn?
Count me in.:)

I'm sure we had one last year, usually a "The Official War on Christamas is a Load of Crap Thread".

Ok, saw it. Thanks.
Would still really like to know who is actually implementing this, TAI.

Would still really like to know who is actually implementing this, TAI.Waiting for Godot...

Count me in.:)

I'm sure we had one last year, usually a "The Official War on Christamas is a Load of Crap Thread".

Office party thread > all war on christmas thread of all kinds.

Did we have one last year? I must have missed it, but I can't wait for the whole people shouldn't be allowed to participate in their religion thing. Aw, man. It's already started...

A union organiser told me recently that the government documents she has to deal with stopped using the word "union" in the last term of the Howard government.

It was replaced, she said, with "democratically elected employee-originated organisation".

(I didn't check this, because someone started singing, "Oh, you won't get me, I'm part of the democratically elected employee-originated organisation" and the meeting adjourned to the pub.)

.

That wouldn't have been done for the sake of union members; If that actually happened it would probably be to limit the amount of "unions hate us" themes you'd get from those pesky memos that are found by journalists.

A union organiser told me recently that the government documents she has to deal with stopped using the word "union" in the last term of the Howard government.

It was replaced, she said, with "democratically elected employee-originated organisation".

(I didn't check this, because someone started singing, "Oh, you won't get me, I'm part of the democratically elected employee-originated organisation" and the meeting adjourned to the pub.)

.

Using union fees, to I suppose. That would be interesting but it may be a once off, if it was even remotely true I am sure it would have came up with the rest of the crap that was brandied about.

Democratically elected? What union are you apart of? The three I have had the pleasure of being a part of and observing certainly weren't democratic.

Using union fees, to I suppose. That would be interesting but it may be a once off, if it was even remotely true I am sure it would have came up with the rest of the crap that was brandied about.


Tch. We Chardonnay types never brandy things about. In the famous words of a well-loved Melburnian, that was a joke, Joyce. :tongue:

Tch. We Chardonnay types never brandy things about. In the famous words of a well-loved Melburnian, that was a joke, Joyce. :tongue:

lol, ok well I don't think I have anything else I can reply to that with reference to the king. But in the words of another Melburnian, it seems I was fooled possums.

Fooled possums? I have never heard that before...

Fooled possums? I have never heard that before...

What, you've never waved a gladdie for Dame Edna? And here I was thinking all Melburnians were cultured.

But I fear we're getting too Ocker for the audience. I'm sending myself to bed right now!

As long as no one says "Pickle me grandmother" than I think we will be fine.

I think I will join you Ardchoille.

That is going to bed now, to mine not yours.

What, you've never waved a gladdie for Dame Edna? And here I was thinking all Melburnians were cultured.

But I fear we're getting too Ocker for the audience. I'm sending myself to bed right now!
Wave a gladdie? I don't like Dame Edna, nor Barry Humphries. Boring IMO.

Suddenly, Aussies, thousands of them

Is it stupid? Certainly.
Is it wrong? No. Why would it be? Nobody is putting in place legislation to mae sure that some words can no longer be used. It's a handful of institutions who feel that they don't want the use of certain words associated with something they publish/teach/stand for. For all I know, it's well within their rights to do so, isn't it?

Sure it's pretty pointless, but I fail to see any harm done, and I can't throw myself into a fit anytime I come across stupidity - I'd never get anything done!

Suddenly, Aussies, thousands of them
Coming over here, stealing our barista jobs...

Is it stupid? Certainly.
Is it wrong? No. Why would it be? Nobody is putting in place legislation to mae sure that some words can no longer be used. It's a handful of institutions who feel that they don't want the use of certain words associated with something they publish/teach/stand for. For all I know, it's well within their rights to do so, isn't it?

Sure it's pretty pointless, but I fail to see any harm done, and I can't throw myself into a fit anytime I come across stupidity - I'd never get anything done!
Pretty much this. Reall, the BSA saying some things aren't nice to say is only a step or two above one of use making a blog post about how we hate people saying 'n*gger'.
Coming over here, stealing our barista jobs...

And bringing their kangaroos and drop bears.

Coming over here, stealing our barista jobs...
So I can be a barista with no experience? Excellent!

Don't worry about your area, we Australians are only taking over London (though a coup would always be possible...).

So I can be a barista with no experience? Excellent!

Don't worry about your area, we Australians are only taking over London (though a coup would always be possible...).

Reverse colonisation.

Reverse colonisation.

We just want to visit the mother land one more time before it goes down the toilet.

We just want to visit the mother land one more time before it goes down the toilet.

But it did so in the 60s already. Didn't you read it in the papers?
Miniskirts, the Beatles, and rivers of blood everywhere. It was mayhem!

So I can be a barista with no experience?
Aye, but all a 'barista' indicates in the UK is that you can make a coffee.

It's another one of our bastardisations of the Italian language.

Pretty much this. Reall, the BSA saying some things aren't nice to say is only a step or two above one of use making a blog post about how we hate people saying 'n*gger'.


I think it's funny how some people will see a conspiracy everywhere. Someone conspiring to make us use words in a different way, someone conspiring to make us hate candy, someone conspiring to paint the moon purple... I can't imagine that there are people with enough free time to dedicate to managing all those conspiracies, let alone the big master-conspiracy that conspires to merge all conspiracies into one...

Aye, but all a 'barista' indicates in the UK is that you can make a coffee.

You have obviously not read any job listings in my area: All small restaurants in the area require previous experience (though one or two just say 'willing to work full-time').

I think it's funny how some people will see a conspiracy everywhere. Someone conspiring to make us use words in a different way, someone conspiring to make us hate candy, someone conspiring to paint the moon purple... I can't imagine that there are people with enough free time to dedicate to managing all those conspiracies, let alone the big master-conspiracy that conspires to merge all conspiracies into one...

Something to do with the illuminati, no doubt. And maybe lizardmen.

Something to do with the illuminati, no doubt. And maybe lizardmen.

It's far worse than that: the article said Sociologists were involved. :eek2:

[/science student]

Can't wait till I get out of the UK. It's a toilet, thanks to the PC gang. I'm going straight to Russia whenever I have the money. I'll learn Russian, it's better than having words banned...

Someone conspiring to make us use words in a different way, someone conspiring to make us hate candy, someone conspiring to paint the moon purple...
I, for one, welcome our new moon-painting overlords.

Can't wait till I get out of the UK. It's a toilet, thanks to the PC gang. I'm going straight to Russia whenever I have the money. I'll learn Russian, it's better than having words banned...
Eh... wut?

"The UK might have a higher standard of living, more pleasant climate and more people than I know than Russia, but fuck that shit because I can't call a spade a spade"

Seriously?

A union organiser told me recently that the government documents she has to deal with stopped using the word "union" in the last term of the Howard government.

It was replaced, she said, with "democratically elected employee-originated organisation".

(I didn't check this, because someone started singing, "Oh, you won't get me, I'm part of the democratically elected employee-originated organisation" and the meeting adjourned to the pub.)

.
You know the words - sing along!


Now I'm a democratically elected employee-originated organisation person
Amazed at what I am
I speak out about what I consciously think
That the for-profit commercial organization has a negative olfactory influence upon my senses
Yes I'm a democratically elected employee-originated organisation person.

When we convene in the local auditorium
I'll be casting my ballot with the larger group of like-minded individuals
With a vociferation marked by extremely high volume and intensity of sound
It's out non-fraternal siblings out
And the rise of the corporation's manufacturing facility's decline.

Oh you don't get me I'm part of the democratically elected employee-originated organisation
You don't get me I'm part of the democratically elected employee-originated organisation
You don't get me I'm part of the democratically elected employee-originated organisation
Till the day I no longer count as alive biologically, till the day I no longer count as alive biologically.

As a democratically elected employee-originated organisation person I have sound judgment and keen perception
To the untruths and deceptions of the commercial organization's undercover agents
And I'm not deficient in judgment
where the the manufacturing facility's rules, regulations and guidelines
'Cause I always read between the fine print and am aware of the intentions behind the letter of the law.

And I always get my way
If I cease working in support of demands for higher wages made upon my employer
When I show my card
To the Scotland Yard
This what I proclaim.

Oh you don't get me I'm part of the democratically elected employee-originated organisation
You don't get me I'm part of the democratically elected employee-originated organisation
You don't get me I'm part of the democratically elected employee-originated organisation
Till the day I cease living, till the day I cease living.

Before the democratically elected employee-originated organisation did appear
My life was half as clear
Now I've got the power
To the working hour
And every other day of the time between two recurrences of an event related to the orbit of the Earth around the sun.

So though I'm an actively employed person
I can ruin the democratically elected representatives of the people who exercise authority over the nation's plan
Though I'm not too hard
The sight of my card
Makes me some kind of comic book hero created by Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster.

Oh you don't get me I'm part of the democratically elected employee-originated organisation
You don't get me I'm part of the democratically elected employee-originated organisation
You don't get me I'm part of the democratically elected employee-originated organisation
Till the day I pass on to the Great Beyond, till the day I die.

It's far worse than that: the article said Sociologists were involved. :eek2:

[/science student]

Just be glad it wasn't Scientologists!

Seriously?

I'll share my suspicions of sarcasm with you. You can have half of them, but I can't spare much more because I need to devote suspicion to other things.

I'll share my suspicions of sarcasm with you. You can have half of them, but I can't spare much more because I need to devote suspicion to other things.
Well that's awfully generous of you, ta.

But it did so in the 60s already. Didn't you read it in the papers?
Miniskirts, the Beatles, and rivers of blood everywhere. It was mayhem!

Us folk in the colonies are sometimes a bit behind the times, it takes a little longer for news to reach us. As soon as that international telegraph line gets installed we should be able to catch up.

It's far worse than that: the article said Sociologists were involved. :eek2:

[/science student]Which hard science?

Which hard science?

Hard sociology. *nods*

This (http://www.amazon.com/Myth-Political-Correctness-Conservative-Education/dp/0822317133) just may be your new favorite book.I can understand the mechanics of backlash without reading every book about it, though Backlash itself is highly recommended. In fact, I've personally run into the new McCarthyism that has embedded itself in many US college campuses in the form of David Horowitz's scary Orwellian goon squads.

This may not be a popular opinion on this board, but I think that a study of the implicit connotations of words is important. This can be done badly of course- particularly when the academic analysis of oppressive language replaces a multi-front battle for social equality rather then complements it. Even in it's most misguided and least effective form though, such endeavors do not generally bear a significant similarity to the Orwellian concept of "Newspeak."

The purpose of "Newspeak" was to establish a new language in which every word had but a single meaning and every idea had but a single word for it, and certain ideas had no words for them at all. This would also make any past surviving subversive oldspeak texts incomprehensible and make it that much less possible for a new generation to form subversive ideologies because the very words for the basic ideas would no longer exist.

What it's opponents have dubbed the "PC" project is nothing like this. It simply seeks to openly analyze words to study their relationship with the establishment and maintenance of social hierarchies. Rather then rebuilding the languege from the ground up, it simply seeks to add a list of words to the category of foul and publicly unacceptable language. It is no more 'newspeak' then the banning of words such as f**k, s**t, c**t and C**ks**ker from polite company. Think about it: we already have a category of similarly taboo words which are arguably taboo for much worse reasons. Is this "Newspeak?" If so then English has been "Newspeak" since it's inception.

Seriously: how is it 'newspeak' to simply replace scatological and sexual language with racist and patriarchal slurs as the new 'taboo' category? Though you may not agree with this project, your cause would be better served with arguments against the actual "PC" project rather than this bizarre "newspeak" strawman.

It is no more 'newspeak' then the banning of words such as f**k, s**t, c**t and C**ks**ker from polite company.

You think able bodied and man on the street are as bad as fuck, **** etc?

I am not defending this particular instance. I am talking about the so-called "PC" project in general which is constantly compared to "newspeak" by it's overwhelmingly white male opponents.

Even in this case though, the argument is that "able bodied" and "man on the street" ought to be in that category. Whether or not I think that they ought to be, my point is that these folks obviously think so. That would perhaps put them in the same category as the people who don't think that the word 'crap' ought not be uttered in polite company. Their reasons are better though. I can defiantly see how 'man on the street' could be somewhat problematic. There are more important things to be worrying about as far as women's and disabled people's equality though.

Hard sociology. *nods*
'Ard sociology? I can just imagine them, bands of tough-as-nails sociologists, prowling the streets, looking for people to beat up.

'Ard sociology? I can just imagine them, bands of tough-as-nails sociologists, prowling the streets, looking for people to beat up.

I hear the really tough ones are having their herbal tea intravenously.

Can't wait till I get out of the UK. It's a toilet, thanks to the PC gang. I'm going straight to Russia whenever I have the money. I'll learn Russian, it's better than having words banned...

Evidently you didn't read the article, or much of the thread. Nobody is banning any words. If you like free speech so much maybe you should start listening to what other people say.

Somewhere, there is an elderly black epileptic feminist with special needs from a developing nation who is really confused about who they are now.

How could anyone find brainstorm as insulting to epileptics?

How could anyone find brainstorm as insulting to epileptics?

Sociologists are noted dumbasses.

<snip>

No, I don't find this wrong, just ridiculously stupid. More examples of PC bullshit. Though, if this ever does get passed in England, you could always come to the States... for all our faults, I can guarentee you we'll never have that problem...

Though, just to note, Orwell's concept of Newspeak is not as worrying as it may seem. People don't become physically stupider by deleting words from the vocabulary. Just because people virtually removed all references to sex during Victorian times didn't make them stop understanding it... or having it;)

No, I don't find this wrong, just ridiculously stupid. More examples of PC bullshit. Though, if this ever does get passed in England, you could always come to the States... for all our faults, I can guarentee you we'll never have that problem...As far as I know, TAI resides in Switzerland, having travelled there from Florida.

As far as I know, TAI resides in Switzerland, having travelled there from Florida.

Ah, he leads my dream life (drools at the prospect of going to Switzerland)

The BSA eh? aka BritSoc...

Well someone earlier said they were likely a small organisation...they have 2,200 members. They have assets of roughly 750K Stirling and are a state registered charity. The kicker is that this is also the professional association for Sociologists. Not some crack pot club of renegade anti-linguists.

Of course non of the above is a pointer to a sane organisation and frankly I find this bizarre need to fuck with our language to be rather annoying. Look at how English has developed...taking what it needs and dropping that which it does not need.

Man in the street...a term encompassing the everyman...which of course is also 'bad' by the standards of some sad little git who got a sociology degree only because stupidity barred progress in any other discipline. That would be a real discipline like...oh say....physics.

Sure there is a place for sociology...no doubt of that. The amount of paper generated by these twats will serve me well during the EOTWAWKI as bog roll.

I just finally read this, and I'm literally sick to my stomach.

Which hard science?

Mostly Mathematics, but with quite a few open modules for whatever else I feel like doing. :p

The kicker is that this is also the professional association for Sociologists. Not some crack pot club of renegade anti-linguists.

Even I'm not touching that one...

Mostly Mathematics, but with quite a few open modules for whatever else I feel like doing. :p



Even I'm not touching that one...

You are?

Sorry no idea so that has little meaning to me...I'm not sure if I should be relieved or distressed or to have dinner....

I just finally read this, and I'm literally sick to my stomach.

I can only imagine how real issues affect you, if this load of irrelevant bullshit has that effect.

I can only imagine how real issues affect you, if this load of irrelevant bullshit has that effect.

How is it irrelevant?

How is it irrelevant?

It's hardly the most pressing political issue of our generation, is it?

It's hardly the most pressing political issue of our generation, is it?

Yet how does that make it irrelevant?

Yet how does that make it irrelevant?

Because it doesn't apply to anyone who isn't a socoligist. No, scratch that, it doesn't apply to anyone who isn't a British socoligist. No scratch that, it doesn't apply to anyone who isn't a British socialogist. It is, to me, to you, 99.5% of the population of the world, and defiantly to a the poster who was sick to his stomach, not relevant to them in any way, shape of form. Not relevant. Irrelevant. Can we move on?

Sometimes I have to correct the english on some papers written by friends of mine who are (not British) sociologists, so it may affect me one day.

Because it doesn't apply to anyone who isn't a socoligist. No, scratch that, it doesn't apply to anyone who isn't a British socoligist. No scratch that, it doesn't apply to anyone who isn't a British socialogist. It is, to me, to you, 99.5% of the population of the world, and defiantly to a the poster who was sick to his stomach, not relevant to them in any way, shape of form. Not relevant. Irrelevant. Can we move on?

Unfortunately it is not as you say. If you had read the article you would have noticed at that several universities referenced the BSA work in their student guides.

Those guides being the ones on how to prepare and write a paper with *shock* annotations!

Language modifies itself through usage...not restriction based on subjective prejudices.

And if it is so irrelevant to you then I must wonder as you seem to be expending effort in this discussion that you deem irrelevant.

Odd.

Sometimes I have to correct the english on some papers written by friends of mine who are (not British) sociologists, so it may affect me one day.

Are you sick to your stomach?

No, I don't find this wrong, just ridiculously stupid. More examples of PC bullshit. Though, if this ever does get passed in England, you could always come to the States... for all our faults, I can guarentee you we'll never have that problem...
A small organization may never write a set of guidelines concerning the use of language somewhere in the US?

I just finally read this, and I'm literally sick to my stomach.
You poor, oversensitive thing.

Unfortunately it is not as you say. If you had read the article you would have noticed at that several universities referenced the BSA work in their student guides.

Those guides being the ones on how to prepare and write a paper with *shock* annotations!

Language modifies itself through usage...not restriction based on subjective prejudices.


Fine. Congratulations, for you have, with your towering intellect and piercing insight, exposed the web of deceit that I have sown. I apologize and prostrate my self before your golden form. I, as a humble peasant before you, was simply trying to point out the inanity of someone professing to be sick to their stomach at this mildest piece of political correctness. And, while I was doing thing this, I, in my human error, used the word irrelevant when I should have employed the phrase "one iota above irrelevant". Luckily I had the like of you above me to point out my mistakes while ignoring the thrust of my message. Please, master, forgive me!

And if it is so irrelevant to you then I must wonder as you seem to be expending effort in this discussion that you deem irrelevant.

Odd.

Heh. If I knew the answer to this, I might be able to leave NSG.

Fine. Congratulations, for you have, with your towering intellect and piercing insight, exposed the web of deceit that I have sown. I apologize and prostrate my self before your golden form. I, as a humble peasant before you, was simply trying to point out the inanity of someone professing to be sick to their stomach at this mildest piece of political correctness. And, while I was doing thing this, I, in my human error, used the word irrelevant when I should have employed the phrase "one iota above irrelevant". Luckily I had the like of you above me to point out my mistakes while ignoring the thrust of my message. Please, master, forgive me!

Well if you feel the need to prostrate yourself be my guest....personally I'll be in the pub

Regarding irrelevance and your comment...my point was that obviously the poster did not consider it irrelevant. Of course your own towering intellect figured that one out quite well eh?

Cheers!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v427/vonbek/cheers-1.gif

Are you sick to your stomach?No, I'm "gastrically challenged".

Well if you feel the need to prostrate yourself be my guest....personally I'll be in the pub

There's no rule against prostration in a pub.

There's no rule against prostration in a pub.

Well if you can make it to the Netherlands in the next 5 minutes you are most welcome to join me...

do you play pool?

I just finally read this, and I'm literally sick to my stomach.
Cripes, you eat a really poorly-cooked lunch or something?

I've yet to have evidence of any institution actually taking this forward. Some members of a 2,200-member group might take it forwards, although doubtless they were just have a PC-off.

I can understand the mechanics of backlash without reading every book about it, though Backlash itself is highly recommended. In fact, I've personally run into the new McCarthyism that has embedded itself in many US college campuses in the form of David Horowitz's scary Orwellian goon squads.

This may not be a popular opinion on this board, but I think that a study of the implicit connotations of words is important. This can be done badly of course- particularly when the academic analysis of oppressive language replaces a multi-front battle for social equality rather then complements it. Even in it's most misguided and least effective form though, such endeavors do not generally bear a significant similarity to the Orwellian concept of "Newspeak."

The purpose of "Newspeak" was to establish a new language in which every word had but a single meaning and every idea had but a single word for it, and certain ideas had no words for them at all. This would also make any past surviving subversive oldspeak texts incomprehensible and make it that much less possible for a new generation to form subversive ideologies because the very words for the basic ideas would no longer exist.

What it's opponents have dubbed the "PC" project is nothing like this. It simply seeks to openly analyze words to study their relationship with the establishment and maintenance of social hierarchies. Rather then rebuilding the languege from the ground up, it simply seeks to add a list of words to the category of foul and publicly unacceptable language. It is no more 'newspeak' then the banning of words such as f**k, s**t, c**t and C**ks**ker from polite company. Think about it: we already have a category of similarly taboo words which are arguably taboo for much worse reasons. Is this "Newspeak?" If so then English has been "Newspeak" since it's inception.

Seriously: how is it 'newspeak' to simply replace scatological and sexual language with racist and patriarchal slurs as the new 'taboo' category? Though you may not agree with this project, your cause would be better served with arguments against the actual "PC" project rather than this bizarre "newspeak" strawman.

Quoted because it bears repeating.

The shape of a language helps shape the thoughts of a people. From the point at which children acquire their earliest vocabulary, they learn to think in ever more complex and relative fashion, by replacing basic symbols with word patterns.

As such, while moderating the language (for public use) will not REPLACE other attempts to bring equality of race, religion, sex and sexuality... it is a very valuable tool for helping build a more constructive thought pattern on the issue.

Within reason, there's no good reason to attack such attempts to make the language of a nation more constructive, and less destructive - especially when, as in this case, no one is being COMPELLED to do anything.

Unfortunately it is not as you say. If you had read the article you would have noticed at that several universities referenced the BSA work in their student guides.


Perhaps you'd like to point out which ones make it mandatory?

Student Guides can reference anything from Mein Kampf to the Pseudomnarchia Daemonum for all I care. It's not what they 'reference' that matters - it's what they compell you to do based ON their references.

In this case: fuck-all.

Perhaps you'd like to point out which ones make it mandatory?

Student Guides can reference anything from Mein Kampf to the Pseudomnarchia Daemonum for all I care. It's not what they 'reference' that matters - it's what they compell you to do based ON their references.

In this case: fuck-all.

Absolutely no requirement for it being mandatory...in fact I think you'll find I said guide...not a rule book ;)

Absolutely no requirement for it being mandatory...in fact I think you'll find I said guide...not a rule book ;)

And what about these guides -- NOT the bullshit stated in the OP mischaracterizing the guides, but the actually guides -- do you object to?

Aren't care, precision, and sensitivity all good things in the choice of language?

Whisky Tango Foxtrot????

Seriously 'potictial correctness' is starting to go a bit too far!

a secondary school in Norwich

Find out which secondary school and I'll find out more, I'm curious.

Woo alright.

You seriously don't consider this a relevant issue? Then you have no problem the having some governing body for every other aspect of your life, eh?

You poor sheeple you.

Absolutely no requirement for it being mandatory...in fact I think you'll find I said guide...not a rule book ;)

Since the argument was that it was irrelevent, and you were arguing that it wasn't, because it is referenced in student guides... well - how does being a 'reference' make it 'relevent'?

It has even less relevence to me in THAT guise, than it does as pure data, because I'm not a student, much less - a student at one of those schools.

And, since it is not something that is being enforced, it isn't even 'relevent' to most of the students at those schools, no matter what is written in their student guides.

What it basicalyl comes down to, then - is that an order of sociologists has created a list of terms they object to... and that's it. It has no impact beyond that, no one is being compelled to do anything based on that, and it won't actually impact anyone's life UNLESS they CHOOSE to follow the suggestions.

So... 'irrelevent' doesn't seem inappropriate.

Woo alright.

You seriously don't consider this a relevant issue? Then you have no problem the having some governing body for every other aspect of your life, eh?

You poor sheeple you.

Who is supposed to be the 'governing body' in question... and how exactly are they 'governing'?

Not reacting hysterically doesn't equate to sheepish indifference.

Who is supposed to be the 'governing body' in question... and how exactly are they 'governing'?

Not reacting hysterically doesn't equate to sheepish indifference.

British Sociological Association, whose members include dozens of professors, lecturers and researchers.

Them.

And they're establishing a basis of right and wrong. If anyone follows it is a different story, but it's still a step in the very wrong direction.

Them.

And they're establishing a basis of right and wrong. If anyone follows it is a different story, but it's still a step in the very wrong direction.

DOZENS, you say?

Wow. Dozens... given the mere tens of thousands of practitioners of those trades in the lil' old UK, that practically amounts to a tyranny.

Or, you know... not.

As for your last comment "...establishing a basis of right and wrong... still a step in the very wrong direction..." - what does that have to do with whether or not it is (currently) relevent? What you are discussing ISN'T whether it's relevent... it's whether or not YOU think it's 'good'.

Curious, though - how is encouraging non-discriminatory terminology 'the very wrong direction'?

As for your last comment "...establishing a basis of right and wrong... still a step in the very wrong direction..." - what does that have to do with whether or not it is (currently) relevent? What you are discussing ISN'T whether it's relevent... it's whether or not YOU think it's 'good'.

It's relevant because it's a personal freedom, called freedom of speech. Freedom of speech pertains to speaking, writing, and any other form of communication.

Curious, though - how is encouraging non-discriminatory terminology 'the very wrong direction'?

Once again, freedom of speech. There are a few academics thinking they're doing "the right thing" by suggesting limiting the use of words that are far from discriminatory, and saying the words themselves hurt people's feelings.

Now say this guide took hold, not in this lifetime, but it did; doesn't that effectively curb freedom of speech because a few people said it was the right thing to do?



How about you tell me the last time you heard an epileptic take offense to the word brainstorm? Or what about anyone taking offense to most of those words mentioned? No?

Why is anyone bothering to make this guide then?

It's relevant because it's a personal freedom, called freedom of speech.


The UK doesn't have The Constitution. You're judging UK endeavours by US rules.


Freedom of speech pertains to speaking, writing, and any other form of communication.


Is irrelevent to the subject.


Once again, freedom of speech. There are a few academics thinking they're doing "the right thing" by suggesting limiting the use of words that are far from discriminatory, and saying the words themselves hurt people's feelings.


Your strawman. I don't think 'hurting feelings' is the real objection, here.


Now say this guide took hold, not in this lifetime, but it did;


The guide 'took hold'? What does 'took hold' mean?

Someone turns around and decides to make a Sociologist Society's debate item into national law?


...doesn't that effectively curb freedom of speech because a few people said it was the right thing to do?


No.

No more than schools teaching English is curbing freedom of speech, because it chooses to leave out thousands of other languages.


How about you tell me the last time you heard an epileptic take offense to the word brainstorm?


I can't give you an exact time, but a friend of mine who suffers from grand mal seizures once told me she thought it was a bit of a sick phrase. I don't know if that counts as 'taking offence'.


Or what about anyone taking offense to most of those words mentioned? No?

Why is anyone bothering to make this guide then?

Why are you bothering to post comments here?

Maybe they're making this 'guide' because they feel that they might have some little contribution to make?

It's relevant because it's a personal freedom, called freedom of speech. Freedom of speech pertains to speaking, writing, and any other form of communication.

Once again, freedom of speech. There are a few academics thinking they're doing "the right thing" by suggesting limiting the use of words that are far from discriminatory, and saying the words themselves hurt people's feelings.

Now say this guide took hold, not in this lifetime, but it did; doesn't that effectively curb freedom of speech because a few people said it was the right thing to do?

Please explain how suggesting that someone be more precise and judicious in one's choice of language infringes their freedom of speech.

Please explain how voluntarily choosing the less hurtful and more accurate terms to describe something is an infringement of anyone's freedom of speech.

How about you tell me the last time you heard an epileptic take offense to the word brainstorm?

*sigh*

1) Did you read past the OP? Did you read this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14029765&postcount=25) (let alone the included links)?

2) Did you notice the "brainstorm" thing has nothing to do with the BSA guidelines but rather was something some council allegedly discouraged on its own?

Or what about anyone taking offense to most of those words mentioned? No?

Why is anyone bothering to make this guide then?

As I already quoted, the Ethnicity & Race guidelines explained:

The following guidelines were originally drawn up by the BSA Black Women’s Sub-Committee and revised by the BSA Race Forum. They represent the views of these groups on the common uses of these terms in everyday language and by social scientists when writing about ethnicity and race.

Language and terminology are changeable and contested. Words can reinforce beliefs and prejudices, but can also be used to challenge racism. As such, it must be recognised that the meaning of these terms will be subject to revision and/or change at a faster rate than these or any other guidelines or sources may be issued.

This is not intended to be an exhaustive list or a definitive guide. We would refer you to the short list of sources at the end of the guidelines for further information about the meaning of these terms and how they have changed over time.

These guidelines should act as a prompt to social scientists and others to consider carefully their choice of terminology.

So the point is to challenge racism, sexism, etc., and to encourage people to improve their terminology. How evil. :eek::headbang:

Regardless, the question to your question is that, yes, some people have been offended by some of the language usage it is suggested one avoid. Like the use of the words "Coloured" and "Negro" -- which shockingly is discouraged by these oppressive guidelines.

All right Grave_n. I am being irrelevant, I'm sorry that the UK shouldn't worry about freedom of speech because it's a "US Rule". I guess that means it's only entitled to us Americans:rolleyes:

And yes, take a sociologist's debate and turn it into law. Like I said, not in this life time, but what if?


Cat-Tribe, no I didn't read post 25 or the links, I just read the OP, skimmed even.

I see where you're coming from, but basically you're saying that if someone uses a word inappropriately, it is suggested it not even be used in writing in universities?

Please explain how suggesting that someone be more precise and judicious in one's choice of language infringes their freedom of speech.

If immigrant becomes the equivalent of the n word just because people go around saying "Stupid immigrants ruin everything!". Do you really think immigrant is a derogatory word and shouldn't be used in writing?

What if someday students get lesser grades because of the use of this word because the professor's great great great grandfather was an immigrant, and it was a horrible word 3 generations ago? This is what I'm getting at. That is how it affects freedom of speech, by curbing the use of an otherwise civil word. It's borderline ridiculous.

Please explain how voluntarily choosing the less hurtful and more accurate terms to describe something is an infringement of anyone's freedom of speech.
When it's voluntary, it's not infringement, eh?:)

I think I brought this up, with the professor grading harder for use of a word. Reverse racism almost.

This whole equality thing is a bit too much. I'm all for equality, but sometimes people just need to suck it up. It's only words, why bother to suggest not using them? Let society sort it out, just as I have no respect for racial slang now, or certain words people use. Just let society work it out the way it does today. There's no need for a guideline ffs, that's basically what has me heated the most. /rant

The UK doesn't have The Constitution.
It very much does (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uk_constitution).

Just because it ain't on one piece of paper...

All right Grave_n. I am being irrelevant, I'm sorry that the UK shouldn't worry about freedom of speech because it's a "US Rule". I guess that means it's only entitled to us Americans:rolleyes:


That seems conflicted to you?

You somehow envision that US law does (or should) apply to other nations?


And yes, take a sociologist's debate and turn it into law. Like I said, not in this life time, but what if?


Yeah, what if. It's a nonsense. You're portraying as a real threat, something that's maybe only a LITLLE more likely than the moon falling on your head.

That kind of 'threat' (apart from being entirely unrealistic) could also be conveniently termed 'irrelevent'.

It very much does (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uk_constitution).

Just because it ain't on one piece of paper...

First - no. I said "The Constitution", which is reference to the US Constitution.

Second - scholars disagree. You can argue that post-Revolutionary England has a 'constitution' due to the formalisation of the power of the rule of law and the supremacy of parliament... but you can similarly argue that rule of law, constitutional monarchy and the supremacy of parliament - while being the LAW of the nation, still do not actually constitute a constitution.

Formally, we (the UK) doesn't have 'a constitution'.

First - no. I said "The Constitution", which is reference to the US Constitution.
My apologies.

Second - scholars disagree. You can argue that post-Revolutionary England has a 'constitution' due to the formalisation of the power of the rule of law and the supremacy of parliament... but you can similarly argue that rule of law, constitutional monarchy and the supremacy of parliament - while being the LAW of the nation, still do not actually constitute a constitution.
Calling the collection of acts, statutes, treaties, et al, a 'constitution' seems easiest to me. They 'constitute' a set of laws that we can point to (in the same way US citizens can point to the US constitution) and say, "government must abide by x", or, "we have the right to do y".

Not that government always abides by x, or we are always free to do y, mind.

My apologies.


None needed. *nods*


Calling the collection of acts, statutes, treaties, et al, a 'constitution' seems easiest to me. They 'constitute' a set of laws that we can point to (in the same way US citizens can point to the US constitution) and say, "government must abide by x", or, "we have the right to do y".

Not that government always abides by x, or we are always free to do y, mind.

It is easy to refer to it as 'a constitution', but it's not really all that accurate. The US Constitution is a largely untouchable document that codifies basic principles and which is basically sacrosanct without extensive attempt to amend it.

On the other hand, the UK's equivalent... basically, evolves every single time a law is passed, and really requires nothing more THAN the passage of laws to amend it. We really lack even a basic codification. And our principles are more about pragmatism and tradition than about 'rules' per se.

And yes, take a sociologist's debate and turn it into law. Like I said, not in this life time, but what if?

What if someone thinks we shouldn't have sociologists discussing terminology and bans all such meeting sometime in the next generation? :eek:

You'd better stop posting, lest our children be stopped waffling on about different ways say 'brainstorm'... :p

If I have to go to the hospital for, say, surgery, I'd rather be a patient than a person... o_O

As for the 'Old Masters' - what are they going to do to all the art books that have that term? Book burning? Correction tape? And what about exchange students who make linguistical blunders naturally on a foreign language anyway.

A while ago there was the debate of 'primary/secondary master/slave' as understood by the innards of a computer. Most computers, if you're fast enough to read the text when it boots, go through the "detect" stuff, and you may spy something like "Primary master (drive)... detected, secondary master... none", and same for slave drives. It was actually debated to death in the USA, until some panel or court or whatnot decided that since those terms have existed longer than politically correct speech, and since they're very effective at describing the 'chain of command' between the computer's drives, they should let be as they are.

"Don't fix what isn't broken", I'd say.

Me British Socialogical Association double-plus badthink

By the way, you forgot the obvious choice from the vote: doubleplusungood. :D

Having found the actual lists on the web**, this is a good example of how TAI's article lied to us.

Here is the entry regarding "black":

Black

Black is a -term that embraces people who experience structural and institutional discrimination because of their skin colour and is often used politically to refer to people of African, Caribbean and South Asian origin to imply solidarity against racism.

The term originally took on political connotations with the rise of black activism in the USA in the 1960s when it was reclaimed as a source of pride and identity in opposition to the many negative connotations relating to the word "black" in the English language (black leg, black list etc.). In the UK however, there is an on-going debate about the use of this term to define South Asian peoples because of the existence of diverse South Asian cultural identities. In the USA, the term 'people of colour' is increasingly used instead of, or alongside black.

Some South Asian groups in Britain object to the use of the word "black" being applied to them. Some sociologists argue that it also conflates a number of ethnic groups that should be regarded separately - Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Indians and so on.

Whilst there are many differences between and within each of the groups, the inclusive term black refers to those who have a shared history of European colonialism, neo-colonialism, imperialism, ethnocentrism and racism. One solution to this is to refer to "black peoples", "black communities" etc., in the plural to imply that there are a variety of such groups.
It is also important to be aware of the fact that in some contexts "black" can also be used in a racist sense.

The capitalisation of the letter "B" in the term "Black British", "British Asian" are shifting ground and it should be stressed that social scientists need to be very clear that the use of these terms does not prioritise nor indeed conflate ethnicity and citizenship.

See, not as dogmatic nor unreasonable (let alone Orwellian) as we were led to believe, especially as the document starts by saying:

The following guidelines were originally drawn up by the BSA Black Women’s Sub-Committee and revised by the BSA Race Forum. They represent the views of these groups on the common uses of these terms in everyday language and by social scientists when writing about ethnicity and race.

Language and terminology are changeable and contested. Words can reinforce beliefs and prejudices, but can also be used to challenge racism. As such, it must be recognised that the meaning of these terms will be subject to revision and/or change at a faster rate than these or any other guidelines or sources may be issued.

This is not intended to be an exhaustive list or a definitive guide. We would refer you to the short list of sources at the end of the guidelines for further information about the meaning of these terms and how they have changed over time.

These guidelines should act as a prompt to social scientists and others to consider carefully their choice of terminology.

As some of us suggested was the case, these are merely guidelines by an organization seeking to prompt some thought about choice of terminology. Not the implementation of Newspeak.

I'll give one last example, regarding the allegation that "immigrant" is "banned" because it is "racist":

Immigrants

Under some circumstances people could correctly be described as immigrants - if they are in-migrants from one place to another. However, this is not a useful term for referring to ethnic groups which have been in Britain since the early post-war period and in the British context has racist overtones, being associated with immigration legislation.


See, not as it was protrayed by TAI's article nor an example of Orwellian thought.

**Here are the dreaded "lists" in full:
# Language and the BSA: Ethnicity & Race (http://www.britsoc.co.uk/NR/rdonlyres/4E70B7F7-58A1-43AB-A414-77F929A954D2/534/EqualityandDiversity_LanguageandtheBSA_RaceMar05.doc) (Word format)
# Language and the BSA: Sex and Gender (http://www.britsoc.co.uk/NR/rdonlyres/4E70B7F7-58A1-43AB-A414-77F929A954D2/533/EqualityandDiversity_LanguageandtheBSA_SexandGende.doc)(Word format)
# Language and the BSA: Non-Disablist (http://www.britsoc.co.uk/NR/rdonlyres/4E70B7F7-58A1-43AB-A414-77F929A954D2/536/EqualityandDiversity_LanguageandtheBSA_NonDisablis.doc) (Word format)

I hope CT doesn't mind me quoting his whole post again because people seemed to have ignored it and its disembowlment of the "Newspeak" argument.

Seriously , what is wrong with people taking a look at the conotations of certain words and what effect they might have on people.
I may not agree with their conclusions, in fact I can think of many instances where I haven't, but I don't think the practice of considering the effect are words have is a "evil" thing to do.

When it's voluntary, it's not infringement, eh?:)
When it's your choice, it's not an infringement on your freedom of speech, no.

The UK doesn't have The Constitution. You're judging UK endeavours by US rules.

:confused:

But the UK does see freedom of speech as an individual right and a personal freedom, do they not? And one the government is bound by law to ensure?

:confused:

But the UK does see freedom of speech as an individual right and a personal freedom, do they not? And one the government is bound by law to ensure?

Sorta-kinda-almost-maybe.... No, not really.

It's not that straightforward, which is part of the reason I say we don't really have a constitution. The 'right to free speech' may be inherent in things like our international treaty arrangements... but the UK has the ability to legislate against treaties (which is kind of insane, when you think about it... what use is the treaty...). It may be codified in a thousand laws, but the UK system requires nothing more than new legislation to overturn even that kind of precedence.

The UK legal system is mainly held together by redtape. Our 'constitution' is basically optimism.

The real surprise, I guess.... is that it seems to work quite so well.

And what about these guides -- NOT the bullshit stated in the OP mischaracterizing the guides, but the actually guides -- do you object to?

Aren't care, precision, and sensitivity all good things in the choice of language?

Well my info is based on what the article stated...and academic guides essentially state the format and language for academic papers...so it creates an expectation.

I agree with you that care precision and sensitivity are good things in the choice of language...I do object to the unnecessary removal of terms that are in general use. After all the English language evolves does it not? It does not need to be modified by people who see negativity in what seems to be everyday terms...like man on the street...which actually has a specific meaning...it means the average male that you bump into or look for when seeking an opinion or a gauge of the public attitude on a subject...

Yes women are clumped in there as well...its the end of the world.

Excuse my sarcasm but really this is what is irrelevant...banning words or phrases because a bunch of academics think they offend.

Since the argument was that it was irrelevent, and you were arguing that it wasn't, because it is referenced in student guides... well - how does being a 'reference' make it 'relevent'?

It has even less relevence to me in THAT guise, than it does as pure data, because I'm not a student, much less - a student at one of those schools.

And, since it is not something that is being enforced, it isn't even 'relevent' to most of the students at those schools, no matter what is written in their student guides.

What it basicalyl comes down to, then - is that an order of sociologists has created a list of terms they object to... and that's it. It has no impact beyond that, no one is being compelled to do anything based on that, and it won't actually impact anyone's life UNLESS they CHOOSE to follow the suggestions.

So... 'irrelevent' doesn't seem inappropriate.

whoa! hang on....lets back up here on this entire irrelevant thing LOL

My comments to DrunkenDove had to do with his comments to the sick to my stomach poster (whoever that was...)

That to the stomach poster it obviously was not irrelevant...that was the gist of my exchanges with DrunkenDove...and my use of the universities as an example of perhaps why the stomach poster felt the way he/she did...

Personally I think the entire concept of what the BSA is doing is irrelevant and they ought to really do something else more useful like work on a kibbutz or something...

So basically at the end of the day I agree with you.

Well my info is based on what the article stated...and academic guides essentially state the format and language for academic papers...so it creates an expectation.


1) Where does it say that people will be punished for not following the guidelines?

2) Even if a Student Guide DID invoke a punishment for circumventing the guidelines... that's the fault of the producer of the guide, not the person creating the list.

You're running around molesting strawmen.


I agree with you that care precision and sensitivity are good things in the choice of language...I do object to the unnecessary removal of terms that are in general use. After all the English language evolves does it not? It does not need to be modified by people who see negativity in what seems to be everyday terms...like man on the street...which actually has a specific meaning...it means the average male that you bump into or look for when seeking an opinion or a gauge of the public attitude on a subject...

Yes women are clumped in there as well...its the end of the world.


'Man in the street' is incorrect. That simple. The term is discriminatory against half of the men in the street, because they aren't men.

It doesn't have to be the end of the world. Where is THAT written? It's actually possible to do things/write things... right things... without the need for the imminent evasion of the apocalypse.


Excuse my sarcasm but really this is what is irrelevant...banning words or phrases because a bunch of academics think they offend.

No one banned anything.

They created a discussion piece.

I'm not quite sure why you're so keen on infringing on their right to free speech.

Why do you hate freedom?

Sorta-kinda-almost-maybe.... No, not really.

It's not that straightforward, which is part of the reason I say we don't really have a constitution. The 'right to free speech' may be inherent in things like our international treaty arrangements... but the UK has the ability to legislate against treaties (which is kind of insane, when you think about it... what use is the treaty...). It may be codified in a thousand laws, but the UK system requires nothing more than new legislation to overturn even that kind of precedence.

The UK legal system is mainly held together by redtape. Our 'constitution' is basically optimism.

The real surprise, I guess.... is that it seems to work quite so well.

Hehe. :tongue:

So basically it is an individual right and a personal freedom protected by law - for now; until the time comes when a new law overturning the old ones is introduced. No constitutional ranking as, for example, it has in the US, and a simple majority would be sufficient to eradicate "free speech".

Would that be closer?

1) Where does it say that people will be punished for not following the guidelines?

2) Even if a Student Guide DID invoke a punishment for circumventing the guidelines... that's the fault of the producer of the guide, not the person creating the list.

You're running around molesting strawmen.

Please point towards my post that mentions punishment please.



'Man in the street' is incorrect. That simple. The term is discriminatory against half of the men in the street, because they aren't men.

errr...so...Man=Woman ....not last time I looked.


It doesn't have to be the end of the world. Where is THAT written? It's actually possible to do things/write things... right things... without the need for the imminent evasion of the apocalypse.

oh please.



No one banned anything.

They created a discussion piece.

I'm not quite sure why you're so keen on infringing on their right to free speech.

Why do you hate freedom?

I'm sorry but where did I say this should be stopped?

Suggesting a new usage really is effectively a ban of those words/phrases these people do not like. Whether or not other people take up the new usage is what counts....and if there is an expectation that papers are written in a certain way...then they will be...or at least the majority.

I hope CT doesn't mind me quoting his whole post again because people seemed to have ignored it and its disembowlment of the "Newspeak" argument.

Seriously , what is wrong with people taking a look at the conotations of certain words and what effect they might have on people.
I may not agree with their conclusions, in fact I can think of many instances where I haven't, but I don't think the practice of considering the effect are words have is a "evil" thing to do.

I would never mind being repeated, especially with the praise you add. In addition to it being flattering, it means I didn't totally waste my time because at least someone read what I wrote. ;):D

Well my info is based on what the article stated...and academic guides essentially state the format and language for academic papers...so it creates an expectation.

I agree with you that care precision and sensitivity are good things in the choice of language...I do object to the unnecessary removal of terms that are in general use. After all the English language evolves does it not? It does not need to be modified by people who see negativity in what seems to be everyday terms...like man on the street...which actually has a specific meaning...it means the average male that you bump into or look for when seeking an opinion or a gauge of the public attitude on a subject...

Yes women are clumped in there as well...its the end of the world.

Excuse my sarcasm but really this is what is irrelevant...banning words or phrases because a bunch of academics think they offend.

If you had done a modicum of reflection (either by reading the thread or thinking more carefully about the subject), you would know that THIS IS NOT ABOUT BANNING WORDS.

Instead, as you yourself say, "the English language evolves" and this is a nudge towards better usage of language. You have yet to explain how that is in any way objectionable.

Hehe. :tongue:

So basically it is an individual right and a personal freedom protected by law - for now; until the time comes when a new law overturning the old ones is introduced. No constitutional ranking as, for example, it has in the US, and a simple majority would be sufficient to eradicate "free speech".

Would that be closer?

Pretty much. It's also, I guess, easier to just bend the law a little, because you throw up an unusual circumstance, and the question becomes "does this battery of laws cover THIS eventuality"?

Please point towards my post that mentions punishment please.


You didn't say it.... and that's kind of the point. There is no punishment. No force. No one is being compelled, or even coerced.


errr...so...Man=Woman ....not last time I looked.


Exactly. We call this the 21st century, welcome - I think you'll like it.


oh please.


Hey, you invoked the 'end of the world' rhetoric.


I'm sorry but where did I say this should be stopped?


I'm sure you must have said it just as forcefully as the original discussion piece did.

See my point?


Suggesting a new usage really is effectively a ban of those words/phrases these people do not like. Whether or not other people take up the new usage is what counts....


So, as the meaning of... say, 'minion' has evolved from meaning 'dear little one' or 'beloved' or some equivalent, to it's current main interpretation of 'a servant or henchman'... that progression towards new usage has been 'banning' ealier interpretations?

No - you've been half-right in this debate, language (perhaps, especially English) DOES evolve. This might turn out to be part of that evolution.


...and if there is an expectation that papers are written in a certain way...then they will be...or at least the majority.

Errr... good?

If you had done a modicum of reflection (either by reading the thread or thinking more carefully about the subject), you would know that THIS IS NOT ABOUT BANNING WORDS.

Instead, as you yourself say, "the English language evolves" and this is a nudge towards better usage of language. You have yet to explain how that is in any way objectionable.

Good grief. Sorry but they are suggesting that certain words or phrases are replaced with other words or phrases which effectively removes the previous ones from use.

What would you call it?

And you wanted to take me to task for wanting to restrict 'freedom of speech' and yet you say that this is ok...pray tell how that works...(sorry...Tudors is on and I need now to switcheth the bloody channel)

You didn't say it.... and that's kind of the point. There is no punishment. No force. No one is being compelled, or even coerced.

Not compelled??? Ok...now I know you are taking the piss mate LOL

Cat-Tribe, no I didn't read post 25 or the links, I just read the OP, skimmed even.

Then rest easy with the knowledge that the OP is utter bullshit and your fears are unwarranted. :)

I see where you're coming from, but basically you're saying that if someone uses a word inappropriately, it is suggested it not even be used in writing in universities?

If immigrant becomes the equivalent of the n word just because people go around saying "Stupid immigrants ruin everything!". Do you really think immigrant is a derogatory word and shouldn't be used in writing?

What if someday students get lesser grades because of the use of this word because the professor's great great great grandfather was an immigrant, and it was a horrible word 3 generations ago?

See, this is where you are all wrong and the word "immigrant" is an excellent examples.

The guidelines don't say or even hint that one shouldn't use the term "immigrant."

The guidelines explain that immigrant is a perfectly acceptable term, but is sometimes misused in a racist way. The guidelines advise against that misuse (not against the proper use of the term.

This is what I'm getting at. That is how it affects freedom of speech, by curbing the use of an otherwise civil word. It's borderline ridiculous.

It is neither ridiculous nor an impositin on the freedom of speech to suggest that people be more precise and judicious in their choice of language or to suggest that one avoid using racist or sexist language (especially without making a deliberate choice to do so). Informing people so they can pick their words carefully is a good thing and promotes free speech.


When it's voluntary, it's not infringement, eh?:)

Pretty much. When I make a free choice not to use a term because I know it is offensive or inaccurate, nothing has impinged on my freedom. To the contrary, the making of such an informed choice is a full-blooded exercise of my freedom of speech.

Reverse racism almost.

Don't get me started on how misused that phrase is!! :wink:

This whole equality thing is a bit too much. I'm all for equality, but sometimes people just need to suck it up.

Um. You'll have to explain how there can be such a thing as too much equal rights or equal opportunity.

It's only words, why bother to suggest not using them?

If "it's only words," why get your panties in a bunch because someone has suggested they be used more carefully?

Let society sort it out, just as I have no respect for racial slang now, or certain words people use. Just let society work it out the way it does today. There's no need for a guideline ffs, that's basically what has me heated the most. /rant

This IS part of "society sort[ing] it out." This is one part of society helping to point out racial slang and certain words people should avoid. You have yet to explain how that is anything but good.

Not compelled??? Ok...now I know you are taking the piss mate LOL

Um. Can you point to an example of someone being compelled to do or say anything by the existence of these guidelines?

Um. Can you point to an example of someone being compelled to do or say anything by the existence of these guidelines?

not really as I am sure you can figure it out for yourself.

Not compelled??? Ok...now I know you are taking the piss mate LOL

In what way.

We have a relatively informal discussion piece, within a group of like-minded professionals.

We could even consider it to be - basically - an internal memo.

We have people like TAI trying to make out that this is some kind of orchestrated attempt to destroy the language. We have arguments that words are being 'banned'... that free speech is being restricted.



Simple question... WHERE? Nothing has been banned. Nothing has been restricted. No one is under any punitive action. No one is under THREAT of any punitive action. No one is under SUSPICION of threat of any punitive action.

Where is all this 'banning'? Where is all this restriction of free speech?

No one has been badgered, bullied, broken or bartered into compliance. No one has been abrogated, subjugated, congregated or conjugated into compliance. No compulsion, coercion, conviction or conjunction. No one has been pulled, pushed, propelled or otherwise persuaded into compliance.

Nothing banned. Nothing restricted. No story.

Good grief. Sorry but they are suggesting that certain words or phrases are replaced with other words or phrases which effectively removes the previous ones from use.

So suggesting that someone should use the term "police officer" rather than "policeman" because it is both more accurate and more senstive is the same thing as imposing a ban on the use of "policeman"?

My, you do live in a Newspeak world after all.

What would you call it?

Exactly what I've said it is: advice on how to choose one words carefully in order to better express one's thoughts.

That sounds like promoting free thought and free speech to me.

And you wanted to take me to task for wanting to restrict 'freedom of speech' and yet you say that this is ok...pray tell how that works...(sorry...Tudors is on and I need now to switcheth the bloody channel)

I'm not sure to what you are referring. Yes, I am a strong proponent of freedom of speech and I may well have taken you to task sometime or another for not fulfilling my expectations in that arena, but I don't recall it at this time.

Regardless, this isn't an infringement of the freedom of speech, in either the legal or the philosophical (let alone practical) sense.

So suggesting that someone should use the term "police officer" rather than "policeman" because it is both more accurate and more senstive is the same thing as imposing a ban on the use of "policeman"?

My, you do live in a Newspeak world after all.
As has become apparent in another thread: Accuracy in language = "PC-ness" :eek2:

Wow...just..just....wow.......!

I really have no better words to describe this level of sheer idiocy and pretentious douchebaggery!


The list of banned words is now sent out to prospective authors by Policy Press, a publisher of social science books and journals based at the University of Bristol, but is also used in many academic institutions.

The University of Bristol's School for Policy Studies recommends the guidelines to help students "challenge heterosexist assumptions", and they are included in a "toolkit" to combat institutional racism included on the University of Leeds' website.

King's College London says they "may provide a good starting point" and Liverpool John Moores University provides a link to them in its students' guide. The Open University said they are an "appropriate source of reference and advice" for students.

Napier University in Edinburgh says the list is "well worth looking at" while the University of East London advises its students they should "attempt to incorporate" it.

Even a secondary school in Norwich includes a link to the list on its website, with the statement: "Students may care to consider how far we inadvertently reproduce inaccurate sexist assumptions in the language we use, both written and spoken."
It's like watching a bunch of lemmings or something. :rolleyes:

I would never mind being repeated, especially with the praise you add. In addition to it being flattering, it means I didn't totally waste my time because at least someone read what I wrote. ;):D

The difference between what the newspapers write about these guides and what is actually in the guides is shocking.

It's also depressing how little people read what they are actually complainning about (although I am also guilty of that at times). It reminds me of reading a blog complaining about an anti-spore site and the author of the blog and all the commentators all failed to notice that it was a spoof site (it had made up joke bible verses in it),

I took a glance through the guide and it did seem to be more a reflection of the contotations of certain words and the usage of them (I'm not sure if that is proper english).
The idea that political correctness is going to signal the end of the world is just plain ridicolous, especially in cases like this, when its a list compiled by a soceity of sociologists intrested in the language we use in society.

I know what you mean about the flattery, I've posted so little that I'm still pleasently surpised that anyone has quoted me :tongue:.

Wow...just..just....wow.......!

I really have no better words to describe this level of sheer idiocy and pretentious douchebaggery!



It's like watching a bunch of lemmings or something. :rolleyes:

Um, how is this a bad thing?
I've seen lots of people fly off the handle on forums like this and in real life about schools getting these "PC" words lists and how they are destroying the education system (and the world, etc,etc) and I have to think why?
No words are getting banned, no-one is getting punished for using the words on the list. Our use of language reflects our society and our society infulences our use of language so surely encourgaing children to consider what language they use is a good thing? Or do we only want education in certain areas of life?

I think the listing of the word immigrant is a good example. This is not a blanket condemnation of the word immigrant, its an encouragement to use that word in its proper context. If I was a 3rd generation person from the caribbean or India, I wouldn't enjoy being called an immigrant. I would have been born in Britain and my parents would have been born in Britian. Why is it unreasonable to adivse children not to refer to every coloured person as an immigrant and to use the word in the correct context?

"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it." - George Orwell 1984
You do realize that 1984 is a novel, right? As in a work of fiction? And I also hope you do realize that the particular words used by people to describe things have never had any influence whatsoever on a country's politics, liberties, or society.

If it were decreed tomorrow that computers shall henceforth be referred to as "zogblahglas," that would be annoying and pointless, sure, but would it have any real impact on your life or your ability to express yourself? No.

Political correctness is stupid, and people who waste their time whining and crying about it are even stupider. They're just words. Get over it. What's next, a debate about the colour of London taxis? If some leftists proposed to require all the taxis to be painted pink and some rightists took up arms in rebellion as if pink taxis heralded the beginning of totalitarian dictatorship, who would be the bigger idiot?

Start arguing about real issues for a change.

. They're just words.

.

You are aware that soceity is built upon communication and that words are important? If the goverment did just start banning words, I would have a problem with it.
That blatantly not the case in this situation, no matter which way the doomsayers try to spin it. You might as well say that there could be a combination of words in the document, which when read, will cause a portal into the netherworld to open and a demon will come out and devour our souls. It's pretty much as relevant as the concerns expressed on this thread.

And I also hope you do realize that the particular words used by people to describe things have never had any influence whatsoever on a country's politics, liberties, or society.
Nonsense!

Use of language is incredibly important, and can have dramatic effects on people's perceptions of events. Political language in particular is used in this way; especially virulent when used to dehumanise a section of society ('bourgeoisie', 'n*gger', 'communist', 'atheist', 'conservative', 'liberal', etc., are all used this way; not forgetting the ubiquitous 'them') so that one can better paint a picture of 'them' as the problem to be solved.

Moreover, the light in which words are cast is incredibly influential. See the USSR's use of the word 'red' to be always positive (or indeed the entire 'Socialist Realism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_realism)' project), and more recently, Western governments' similar use of the term 'democracy'. It's rather hard to use the term 'democracy' pejoratively. This is in itself has a massive influence on a country's politics and liberties, or society in general.

That being said, TAi's still talking pish.

I think the listing of the word immigrant is a good example. This is not a blanket condemnation of the word immigrant, its an encouragement to use that word in its proper context. If I was a 3rd generation person from the caribbean or India, I wouldn't enjoy being called an immigrant. I would have been born in Britain and my parents would have been born in Britian. Why is it unreasonable to adivse children not to refer to every coloured person as an immigrant and to use the word in the correct context?

Newton Crosby: Where are you from, anyway?
Ben Jabituya: Bakersfield, originally.
Newton Crosby: No, I mean your ancestors.
Ben Jabituya: Oh, them. Pittsburgh.

I knew that silly movie would come in handy someday.