NationStates Jolt Archive

http://tallskinnykiwi.typepad.com/tallskinnykiwi/censorship-small.jpg

Euro chiefs ban 'Miss' and 'Mrs'
The European Parliament has banned the terms 'Miss' and 'Mrs' in case they offend female MEPs.

The politically correct rules also mean a ban on Continental titles, such as Madame and Mademoiselle, Frau and Fraulein and Senora and Senorita.

Guidance issued in a new 'Gender-Neutral Language' pamphlet instead orders politicians to address female members by their full name only.

Officials have also ordered that 'sportsmen' be called 'athletes', 'statesmen' be referred to as 'political leaders' and even that 'synthetic' or 'artificial' be used instead of 'man-made'.

The guidance lists banned terms for describing professions, including fireman, air hostess, headmaster, policeman, salesman, manageress, cinema usherette and male nurse.

However MEPs are still allowed to refer to 'midwives' as there is no accepted male version of the job description.

The booklet also admits that "no gender-neutral term has been successfully proposed" to replace 'waiter' and 'waitress', allowing parliamentarians to use these words in a restaurant or café.

Yes, it's all a bunch of ridiculous, dreary leftist garbage until my main man Struan Stevenson, a conservative MEP from Scotland comes into the picture and puts foot to ass.

It has been circulated by Harold Romer, the parliament's secretary general, to the 785 MEPs working in Brussels and Strasbourg.

Struan Stevenson, a Scottish Conservative MEP described the guidelines as "political correctness gone mad."

He said: "We have seen the EU institutions try to ban the bagpipes and dictate the shape of bananas, but now they see determined to tell us which words we are entitled to use in our own language."

Philip Bradbourn, another Conservative MEP, vowed to ignore the booklet, which he described as a "waste of taxpayers' money" and called on Mr Romer to reveal its cost.

He added: "I will have no part of it. I will continue to use my own language and expressions, which I have used all my life, and will not be instructed by this institution or anyone else in these matters."

Seven years ago, an attempt to amend noise laws came close to effectively outlawing bagpipes.

However, a number of bizarre EU rules remain in place, including a directive stating that every pair of rubber boots must be supplied with a user's manual in 12 languages.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/4995787/Euro-chiefs-ban-Miss-and-Mrs.html


Just another step up the newspeak-ladder.

Opinions, correct and incorrect?

won't mean anything, noone will pay any attention, and life will continue as usual.

It's about time the EU Parliament freaking caught up to the 21st century. Seriously? People are still whining about saying 'police officer' instead of 'policeman'?

Considering the wide range of progressive, human rights-based initiatives entered into by the EU, it would be beyond hypocritical to continue to engage in anachronistic sexism for the sake of...sorry TAI, what was it for the sake of? Not making things 'difficult' for old guys?

Does this really need to be legislated? Really?

It's just part of the language and the history of the language. In German for example you say herrlich if something is magnificent, and you can say dämlich if something is sort of stupid or it sucks. Literally, those two mean manly and womanly, but you don't mean them that way when you speak. Personally I find it ridiculous and if people get offended by non-offensive language, well they are gonna develop some pretty high blood pressure and not really enjoy life. . .

And anyway,

"Who is 'reactionary' and who is 'progressive'? Reaction against an unwise policy is not to be condemned. And progress towards chaos is not to be commended. Nothing should find acceptance just because it is new, radical, and fashionable."

Struan Stevenson, a Scottish Conservative MEP described the guidelines as "political correctness gone mad."

the EU could institute a ban on clothes and I'd support it if the opposition used this catchphrase

It's just part of the language and the history of the language.

just like ******, kike, sandnigger, cracker, chinky, Paki, rag head etc etc

also its totally not banning the terms

please don't tell me that image location is the same as the source you forgot to post...please
Ok, I won't. Source is up now.


the EU could institute a ban on clothes and I'd support it if the opposition used this catchphrase

How unwise of you.

It's just part of the language and the history of the language. In German for example you say herrlich if something is magnificent, and you can say dämlich if something is sort of stupid or it sucks. Literally, those two mean manly and womanly, but you don't mean them that way when you speak. Personally I find it ridiculous and if people get offended by non-offensive language, well they are gonna develop some pretty high blood pressure and not really enjoy life. . . The ones getting frothy here are the ones who are all scared about having to change the way they talk.

Bottle made a comment to you the other day about how a discriminatory practice, if it cannot be justified by anything other than 'tradition', isn't worth keeping. "This is how we have always talked" is a lame argument.

We don't call black men 'boys' anymore...does that offend you?

And anyway,

"Who is 'reactionary' and who is 'progressive'? Reaction against an unwise policy is not to be condemned. And progress towards chaos is not to be commended. Nothing should find acceptance just because it is new, radical, and fashionable."
Yes, because using more appropriate terms for gender-inclusive professions is 'progress towards chaos'. We should instead say things like 'female policeman' and 'male nurse'. That makes things much simpler, and prevents the disintegration of Western civilisation.

And another argument could be made: What RIGHT does the EU Parliament have to control speech, even more so non-hate speech?

Epic fail, as per usual.

The ones getting frothy here are the ones who are all scared about having to change the way they talk.

Bottle made a comment to you the other day about how a discriminatory practice, if it cannot be justified by anything other than 'tradition', isn't worth keeping. "This is how we have always talked" is a lame argument.
No, the ones 'getting frothy' here are the ones taking time, money and resources to legislate against this . . . obviously?:rolleyes:

We don't call black men 'boys' anymore...does that offend you?
No, but it would if there were a law against it.

Yes, because using more appropriate terms for gender-inclusive professions is 'progress towards chaos'. We should instead say things like 'female policeman' and 'male nurse'. That makes things much simpler.
Here's this for a revolutionary idea, don't have the government legislate on what you can say and what you can't say. If people are working and wish to communicate with each other, for some strange reason I have the feeling they will manage to. And if they wish to be pleasant with each other, I have the feeling they'll manage that too.

Without government laws dictating how.

The way we've done so for thousands and thousands of years.

How unwise of you.

if its any consolation I always vehemently oppose any groups that use catchphrases to look cool...or whatever they intend to do

don't have a cow man. >_>

And another argument could be made: What RIGHT does the EU Parliament have to control speech, even more so non-hate speech?

its just a pamphlet aiming to change the way we talk about people (course really this should be aimed at children)

No, but it would if there were a law against it.

don't ever move to the UK will you or the po-po will get you in the back of a Panda

don't have the government legislate on what you can say and what you can't say.

if I walked into the street and started hurling ethnic slurs at people would you be against it?

if its any consolation I always vehemently oppose any groups that use catchphrases to look cool...or whatever they intend to do

don't have a cow man. >_>
I never do about online stuff. ;)

its just a pamphlet aiming to change the way we talk about people (course really this should be aimed at children)
No, it's a ban on titles, guidance on how to conduct oneself and it is not the job of the EU Parliament.

Ask yourself..in the midst of this crisis, couldn't there be something else they are wasting time and money on?

Honestly....I cant even force myself to care one way or the other. The only really irritating thing is they apperantly had nothing more important to do that day.

"Oi, we cant find a match to light that tax payer money on fire with. What else can we do with it?"
"We can waste our time on something that will change absolutally nothing."
"Aight then."


EDIT: Someone explain to me how "Ms" or "Mrs" are sexist. Please, for the love of god, explain that to me.

don't ever move to the UK will you or the po-po will get you in the back of a Panda
Thanks for the tip. :wink:


if I walked into the street and started hurling ethnic slurs at people would you be against it?
It depends. There are of course disturbing the peace laws . . . that one must abide by.

Which is totally different from calling someone Mrs. or Ms. .

To everyone getting into a fit about people using gender-specific terms where they should be neutral and so forth.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire

To everyone getting into a fit about people using gender-specific terms where they should be neutral and so forth.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire

But whats wrong with identifying the gender? Sure, "police officer" I could understand, but what the fuck is wrong with saying "Ms President" or "Madame President"?

Is it sexist to refer to a femal, for example, as "Mrs. Smith"?

But whats wrong with identifying the gender? Sure, "police officer" I could understand, but what the fuck is wrong with saying "Ms President" or "Madame President"?

No, I'm saying that legislating what pronouns, titles, and words in general you can use or say is ridiculous. You (should) have the right to say whatever you want, within reason.

(notable exceptions: "Fire!" in a crowded building, etc)

But whats wrong with identifying the gender? Sure, "police officer" I could understand, but what the fuck is wrong with saying "Ms President" or "Madame President"?

Is it sexist to refer to a femal, for example, as "Mrs. Smith"?

KoL, have a re-read before you go on :p You seem to have misunderstood what is going on here. No problem, but I'm curious to know what you thought they were actually ruling on. :p

Euro chiefs ban 'Miss' and 'Mrs'
The European Parliament has banned the terms 'Miss' and 'Mrs' in case they offend female MEPs.

The politically correct rules also mean a ban on Continental titles, such as Madame and Mademoiselle, Frau and Fraulein and Senora and Senorita.

Guidance issued in a new 'Gender-Neutral Language' pamphlet instead orders politicians to address female members by their full name only.

KoL, have a re-read before you go on :p

I hope everyone doesn't forget what gender they are when they go home at night.

KoL, have a re-read before you go on :p

But thats what I mean...

How is pointing out their gender sexist? Its a fucking observation.

But thats what I mean...

How is pointing out their gender sexist? Its a fucking observation.

Interestingly, did they ban the use of the term "Mister"?

But thats what I mean...

How is pointing out their gender sexist? Its a fucking observation.

Perhaps third try's the charm? :p

It's not dictating them to point out their gender. It's a removal of titles from people "Senora, Frau, Madame" etc . . . and:

Guidance issued in a new 'Gender-Neutral Language' pamphlet instead orders politicians to address female members by their full name only.

Interestingly, did they ban the use of the term "Mister"?

They said theyre using "gender neutral" terms. So that implies that they did as well, yes.


I have a penis. A woman has a vagina. I dont understand whats wrong in differentiating the two. Saying "Madame President" is in no way implying that she is somehow less capable of doing her job then a "Mister President" would be.

Like I said. Its not sexism. Its a fucking observation.

Perhaps third try's the charm? :p

It's not dictating them to point out their gender. It's removal titles from people "Senora, Frau, Madame" etc . . . and:

Well, in Germany, I know its impolite to call anyone youre not social with by their full name. Such titles are mere politeness. I dont see how theyre sexist.

Many women do not like being referred to as Miss or Mrs because it suggests that the important thing is whether or not she is married, which is why many women prefer Ms., which says nothing about her marital status.

Because we shouldn't judge people on whether or not they 'caught a man yet'.

Many women do not like being referred to as Miss or Mrs because it suggests that the important thing is whether or not she is married, which is why many women prefer Ms., which says nothing about her marital status.

Because we shouldn't judge people on whether or not they 'caught a man yet'.

And that I understand completely.

But finding sexism in "Ms." or "Madame" is going right over my head:(

They said theyre using "gender neutral" terms. So that implies that they did as well, yes.


I have a penis. A woman has a vagina. I dont understand whats wrong in differentiating the two. Saying "Madame President" is in no way implying that she is somehow less capable of doing her job then a "Mister President" would be.

Like I said. Its not sexism. Its a fucking observation.



Well, in Germany, I know its impolite to call anyone youre not social with by their full name. Such titles are mere politeness. I dont see how theyre sexist.

The point is you have totally missed the point. They are not saying "you must differentiate" between Madame President and Mister President, they are saying that saying "Madame President" is sexist and, thus, has been banned....among a bunch of other words.

Got it now?

No, the ones 'getting frothy' here are the ones taking time, money and resources to legislate against this . . . obviously?:rolleyes: Are you capable of reading your sources?

There is no legislation, there is no law. This is a pamphlet...the kind of pamphlet that has been published by many governments and various other organisations. It outlines guidance for Members of Parliament. It does not limit the speech of everyone living in the EU.

Alaska (http://www.alaskabar.org/servlet/content/gender_neutral_language_in_the_courts.html)
New York (http://courts.state.ny.us/ip/womeninthecourts/fair-broch2.pdf)
Gender neutrality in legislative drafting (http://slr.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/29/3/139)

But finding sexism in "Ms." or "Madame" is going right over my head:(

Well, you are addressing them by reference to their gender. Therefore, you must be a chauvinistic pig!

This post certified 100% content-free.

The point is you have totally missed the point. They are not saying "you must differentiate" between Madame President and Mister President, they are saying that saying "Madame President" is sexist and, thus, has been banned....among a bunch of other words.

Got it now?

No, I know theyre not saying you must differentiate.

I know what they are saying is those terms are banned.

What I want to know is how "Madame" is sexist.

Are you capable of reading your sources?

There is no legislation, there is no law. This is a pamphlet...the kind of pamphlet that has been published by many governments and various other organisations. It outlines guidance for Members of Parliament. It does not limit the speech of everyone living in the EU.

Alaska (http://www.alaskabar.org/servlet/content/gender_neutral_language_in_the_courts.html)
New York (http://courts.state.ny.us/ip/womeninthecourts/fair-broch2.pdf)
Gender neutrality in legislative drafting (http://slr.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/29/3/139)
Semantics. It takes time, it takes money. It is worthless. And it is not just for in Parliament, as this shows:


The booklet also admits that "no gender-neutral term has been successfully proposed" to replace 'waiter' and 'waitress', allowing parliamentarians to use these words in a restaurant or café.

don't ever move to the UK will you or the po-po will get you in the back of a Panda
They will arrest him for not being in agreement with laws? I have to say, that's hardly shocking with cowards like Gordon Brown in office, barring fellow European Members of Parliament, such as Geert Wilders -- how far the shining beacon of democracy has fallen.


if I walked into the street and started hurling ethnic slurs at people would you be against it?
I wouldn't find it particularly savoury, but I think the social reaction would solve the issue rather than requiring a government mandate. Honestly, countries around the world have regulations on hate speech: how well have they succeeded? If songs like "Barack the Magic Negro" and other popular instances of racism aren't evidence enough, people, despite laws, are still quite willing to be racist in public. Additionally, if they are willing to be racist in public, you would have to be completely bereft of intelligence to believe they would not be even more bold in private.

The point is, society is capable of solving its problems to an equivalent extent without government regulation. The only difference in actually creating laws on this subject is one can actually be charged with a crime for idiotic, racist statements. The social ostracisation that ensues from such comments certainly suffice to prevent such elements from achieving public office, or other positions of power.

Beyond that, so what if someone is racist? In all technicality, if they own a private business, they should have the right to discriminate in their hiring. The only result is limited productivity, as they have a smaller pool of labour, and less success for their business overall.

I will never understand why people feel the need to pass laws on every subject in existence: if it doesn't actually harm you or another, there is no need for a law. Additionally, how much sense does it make to pass laws specific to gender and race in the name of being anti-racist and anti-sexist: that looks like the definition of it right there. People derive their rights from precisely that -- their being people. To legislate otherwise is inherently racist and sexist.

Have fun being racist, sexist, and political and economic failures, leftists.

No, I know theyre not saying you must differentiate.

I know what they are saying is those terms are banned.

What I want to know is how "Madame" is sexist.

To make everything neutral and equal because they are useless tools.

The booklet also admits that "no gender-neutral term has been successfully proposed" to replace 'waiter' and 'waitress', allowing parliamentarians to use these words in a restaurant or café.

What about a server?

No, it's a ban on titles, guidance on how to conduct oneself and it is not the job of the EU Parliament.

from what I read its a code of etiquette fro the EU Parliament to refer to one another and such

seems like fairly straight forward lead by example stuff

Ask yourself..in the midst of this crisis, couldn't there be something else they are wasting time and money on?

The only really irritating thing is they apperantly had nothing more important to do that day.

good lord you people are crazy, can you actually imagine a competent government thats out getting shit done? *shudders*

EDIT: Someone explain to me how "Ms" or "Mrs" are sexist. Please, for the love of god, explain that to me.

identifies ones Gender which could be compared to referring to someone as White.T.Blair

see: hairy dykes called themselves womyn

It depends. There are of course disturbing the peace laws . . . that one must abide by.

so you could argue the same for these titles

Which is totally different from calling someone Mrs. or Ms. .

but can you argue that distinguishing ones sex is different to ones race? both have their stereotypes and both even have a history of ownership

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire

Voltaire was born in the 1600's and was speaking against the state crushing any criticism of it

They will arrest him for not being in agreement with laws? I have to say, that's hardly shocking with cowards like Gordon Brown in office, barring fellow European Members of Parliament, such as Geert Wilders -- how far the shining beacon of democracy has fallen.



I wouldn't find it particularly savoury, but I think the social reaction would solve the issue rather than requiring a government mandate. Honestly, countries around the world have regulations on hate speech: how well have they succeeded? If songs like "Barack the Magic Negro" and other popular instances of racism aren't evidence enough, people, despite laws, are still quite willing to be racist in public. Additionally, if they are willing to be racist in public, you would have to be completely bereft of intelligence to believe they would not be even more bold in private.

The point is, society is capable of solving its problems to an equivalent extent without government regulation. The only difference in actually creating laws on this subject is one can actually be charged with a crime for idiotic, racist statements. The social ostracisation that ensues from such comments certainly suffice to prevent such elements from achieving public office, or other positions of power.

Beyond that, so what if someone is racist? In all technicality, if they own a private business, they should have the right to discriminate in their hiring. The only result is limited productivity, as they have a smaller pool of labour, and less success for their business overall.

I will never understand why people feel the need to pass laws on every subject in existence: if it doesn't actually harm you or another, there is no need for a law. Additionally, how much sense does it make to pass laws specific to gender and race in the name of being anti-racist and anti-sexist: that looks like the definition of it right there. People derive their rights from precisely that -- their being people. To legislate otherwise is inherently racist and sexist.

Have fun being racist, sexist, and political and economic failures, leftists.
:hail::hail::hail: All hail Nordea Bank :hail::hail::hail:

And that I understand completely.

But finding sexism in "Ms." or "Madame" is going right over my head:(

Ms. is not considered sexist, as far as I can tell. I would assume that Madame is considered sexist because it's the French word for Mrs. and French is one of the languages spoken in the EU.

Semantics. It takes time, it takes money. It is worthless. And it is not just for in Parliament, as this shows:
Semantics? That's your response to me pointing out that you didn't read your source properly, or understand what you are talking about? You are ranting about 'laws' when no laws have been passed. Now you want to shift it to time/money spent. Most governmental organisations have a gender-equity branch...shockingly so does the EU (http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/gender_equality/index_en.html)! you want to remove that as well? Unfortunately for you, the Treaty of the European Union (http://www.gender-equality.webinfo.lt/results/european_union.htm) obliges member states to promote gender equity. As such, the European Parliament in particular needs to adhere to a high standard, and set a good example. Will that take time and money? Lee time and less money if idiots would stop complaining about 'tradition'. You don't believe in gender equity, symbolic, actual, implemented, planned or otherwise? Then stay the fuck out of the EU Parliament.

As for your 'it's outside the Parliament too' comment...clearly you don't understand the nature of political office. You don't become a 'regular person on the street' when you leave the Parliament for the day. You are still an elected official with specific responsibilities.

Voltaire was born in the 1600's and was speaking against the state crushing any criticism of it

*cough*

1984 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four)

*snip*
I will never understand why people feel the need to pass laws on every subject in existence: if it doesn't actually harm you or another, there is no need for a law. Good job at also failing to understand the subject matter at hand.

Let's all run around screaming 'evil law evil law' some more...it's really fun.

Interestingly, have they come up with a punishment should a person (of a parliamentary nature) be caught using these "banned" terms?

What if a member of state-endorsed law enforcement force is not a holder of officer rank?

Let's all run around screaming 'evil law evil law' some more...it's really fun.

The European Parliament has prohibited the use of the terms 'Miss' and 'Mrs' in case they upset female MEPs.

According to a new "Gender-Neutral Language" guidance, the politicians are required to address female members by their full name only.

This seems to be a law. The fact that it only applies to members of parliament doesn't undermine that fact. Now, my question is, what's the punishment for violating it? It is "required" and certain terms are "prohibited", so there must be a punishment for breaking the rules. Right? Right?

What if a member of state-endorsed law enforcement force is not a holder of officer rank?
Buh?

Police officers are not military personnel...'officer' is not an official title or designation of rank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_rank).

This seems to be a law. The fact that it only applies to members of parliament still makes it a law. Now, my question is, what's the punishment for violating it? It is "required" and certain terms are "prohibited", so there must be a punishment for breaking the rules. Right? Right?

That would depend on the extent of hyperbole in the article.

That would depend on the extent of hyperbole in the article.

Granted, but assuming the article is 100% accurate*, what's the penalty for defying it and using "prohibited" terms?

*Which we all know is ridiculous, but the purposes of this discussion, I'm willing to accept

They will arrest him for not being in agreement with laws? I have to say, that's hardly shocking with cowards like Gordon Brown in office, barring fellow European Members of Parliament, such as Geert Wilders -- how far the shining beacon of democracy has fallen.

1) no they will arrest him if he goes about committing hate speech in public
2) Geert Wilders was refused entry because hes an extremist which is rather fitting really
3) we have never tried to be the shining beam of democracy from what I recall

I wouldn't find it particularly savoury, but I think the social reaction would solve the issue rather than requiring a government mandate.

social reaction you say? what are the Welsh gonna do about it?

Honestly, countries around the world have regulations on hate speech: how well have they succeeded? If songs like "Barack the Magic Negro" and other popular instances of racism aren't evidence enough, people, despite laws, are still quite willing to be racist in public.

the laws are to allow police to arrest those going about in public threatening minorities and such nobody cares about silly songs as long as they are not being broadcast

and you know what? people get uppy if I poke fun of disabled people now which is completely different to the 90's and certainly the 80's so I guess hate speech laws work, especially in the workplace

Additionally, if they are willing to be racist in public, you would have to be completely bereft of intelligence to believe they would not be even more bold in private.

and the state doesn't care what you do in private because the issue is the affect you have on the people you are calling whatever you call them

The point is, society is capable of solving its problems to an equivalent extent without government regulation.

I don't see it

if they own a private business, they should have the right to discriminate in their hiring.

no because thats discrimination and its wrong for someone to be treated as less of a person because of whatever

as such they can sue your arse off for it

This seems to be a law. The fact that it only applies to members of parliament still makes it a law. Now, my question is, what's the punishment for violating it? It is "required" and certain terms are "prohibited", so there must be a punishment for breaking the rules. Right? Right?

*sigh*

Show me the law. Show me the legislation.

This is a pamphlet. There is a legal difference.

You see, there are things called rules and procedures of parliament. They are not laws. They are what they sound like. Rules, and procedures. They can set out the way in which votes in the house are taken, or what to do if someone starts masturbating feverishly during a debate.

Just like there are rules, and procedures in many other positions. McDonald's for example.

Would there be some sort of punishment for breaking the rules? Well, if you were masturbating feverishly at your workplace, do you think there might be consequences?

You know what else is sexist? languages that decline nouns for masculine and feminine forms. damn you linguistics

Show me the law. Show me the legislation.

I'm going off the article, which throws around terms like "prohibited", "banned", and "required."

This is a pamphlet. There is a legal difference.

I understand that there's a pamphlet. However, it keeps throwing around terms as above, which seems to indicate a "requirement" rather than a "suggestion".

You see, there are things called rules and procedures of parliament. They are not laws. They are what they sound like. Rules, and procedures. They can set out the way in which votes in the house are taken, or what to do if someone starts masturbating feverishly during a debate.

They have a rule for that? Does it happen that often? :eek:

Just like there are rules, and procedures in many other positions. McDonald's for example.

I would assume so.

Would there be some sort of punishment for breaking the rules? Well, if you were masturbating feverishly at your workplace, do you think there might be consequences?

I'm sure there would be.

There would also be laws on it, indecent exposure comes to mind real quick.

However, once I left the workplace (in this hypothetical, McDonalds), I could masturbate all I wanted and assuming I didn't get arrested for doing it in public (back to indecent exposure), it would not affect my employment at McDonalds, or be penalized or punished for it in any way.

*cough*

1984 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four)

the Russians are not going to sweep across continental Europe, China has no Mao in much the same way Russia has no Stalin, 1984 has been and gone, consumerism makes far too much cash etc etc

a book written in 1949 cannot become the be all end all of politics in 2009

the Russians are not going to sweep across continental Europe, China has no Mao in much the same way Russia has no Stalin, 1984 has been and gone, consumerism makes far too much cash etc etc

That's what they want you to think. :p

It's the European Parliament.

It has fuck all power.

Buh?

Police officers are not military personnel...'officer' is not an official title or designation of rank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_rank).

The link you provided seems to prove that, in fact, at least some countries make a distinction between police officers and enlisted. Calling all police people "officers" may offend those who are entitled to commisioned rank.

You know what else is sexist? languages that decline nouns for masculine and feminine forms. damn you linguistics

The most common way to deal with that issue is highlighted in this WHO agenda item (http://www.who.int/gb/gov/ebr/PDF/Documents/eigwgwm6id1.pdf). Legislation, for example, will usually contain a provision that a reference to the one gender automatically includes the other gender unless otherwise specified. Nonetheless, there still exist gender neutral terms in 'gendered' languages despite the existence of gendered pronouns. In French, you can use 'on' instead of he/she. You don't need to butcher the language to remove all masculine/feminine distinctions in nouns...but not assuming a person's gender because of his/her profession is a good way to mirror changing realities.

The link you provided seems to prove that, in fact, at least some countries make a distinction between police officers and enlisted. Calling all police people "officers" may offend those who are entitled to commisioned rank.

The issue is a generic term, not specific terms. In Canada, for example, RCMP (federal police) are constables, not officers. Officers tend to be provincial, or municipal. Every country is going to have a different 'generic' depending on the kind of police officer referred to.

I'm going off the article, which throws around terms like "prohibited", "banned", and "required."


I understand that there's a pamphlet. However, it keeps throwing around terms as above, which seems to indicate a "requirement" rather than a "suggestion". That is because the kind of people who write these types of articles tend to pander to the kind of people who start threads like these. Who needs accuracy?



I'm sure there would be.

There would also be laws on it, indecent exposure comes to mind real quick. Yes, but not responding in time for an informal vote isn't something that really needs criminal sanction. Nor is anyone suggesting that using gendered language merits such.

However, once I left the workplace (in this hypothetical, McDonalds), I could masturbate all I wanted and assuming I didn't get arrested for doing it in public (back to indecent exposure), it would not affect my employment at McDonalds, or be penalized or punished for it in any way.That's because your particular duties as a McDonald's employee does not create an obligation that you behave in a manner that maintains the integrity of your office.

That is because the kind of people who write these types of articles tend to pander to the kind of people who start threads like these. Who needs accuracy?

So, essentially, you're saying The Daily Mail, The Times of India, Russia Today, The UK Telegraph, and Sunday Mail (all found with a quick google search, and speak roughly the same way) are all wrong about it, and that you're the one who's right. Would you care to back that up with something?

Yes, but not responding in time for an informal vote isn't something that really needs criminal sanction. Nor is anyone suggesting that using gendered language merits such.

No, but if you're late too much to McDonalds, you'll get fired. Are you suggesting that publicly elected officials should be removed if they use the term Mister or Mrs?

That's because your particular duties as a McDonald's employee does not create an obligation that you behave in a manner that maintains the integrity of your office.

Then you should probably come up with a better comparison when you start drawing up comparisons.

So, essentially, you're saying The Daily Mail, The Times of India, Russia Today, The UK Telegraph, and Sunday Mail (all found with a quick google search, and speak roughly the same way) are all wrong about it, and that you're the one who's right. Would you care to back that up with something?
.....

If they are all the same, word for word, then you really only have one article by one author, don't you?

Fuck them. I will use them anyway like all that other "gone to far" PC bullshit.

Using them is in NO WAY sexist and I will continue to use gender specific words.

If they are all the same, word for word, then you really only have one article by one author, don't you?

They speak roughly the same way, not the exact same words.

Fuck them. I will use them anyway like all that other "gone to far" PC bullshit.

Using them is in NO WAY sexist and I will continue to use gender specific words.

Like I said, it totally makes sense to call a woman a policeman, or a fireman, or a chairman. If that gets confusing at all, you just put 'female' before any of those words, and it's all better!

Like I said, it totally makes sense to call a woman a policeman, or a fireman, or a chairman. If that gets confusing at all, you just put 'female' before any of those words, and it's all better!

Whatever, call a woman policeman sure, I don't care if you want to add female go ahead JUST DON'T BAN WORDS

Seriously, I don't care if people want to practice self censorship then like I care, Just so long as they let me say whatever the hell I like. Hell, even if they do get "banned" I will use them anyway like I do with the current "non-PC" stuff.

They speak roughly the same way, not the exact same words.

Daily Mail: By Daily Mail Reporter
The Times of India: no reporter mentioned.
Russia Today: no reporter mentioned.
The UK Telegraph: By Simon Johnson
Sunday Mail: no reporter mentioned.

Funny how the only reporter mentioned is this Simon Johnson person. It makes you wonder if the other news agencies simply copied and rewrote his article.

So, essentially, you're saying The Daily Mail, The Times of India, Russia Today, The UK Telegraph, and Sunday Mail (all found with a quick google search, and speak roughly the same way) are all wrong about it, and that you're the one who's right. Would you care to back that up with something? How about with the fact that none of them actually say there has been a law passed?

They all seem to be from the same source as almost exactly the same wording is used in each. And again, none of them go as far as to claim a law has been enacted. They all use the term 'guidelines'. Terms like 'banned/prohibited' etc are not backed up with any facts.


No, but if you're late too much to McDonalds, you'll get fired. Are you suggesting that publicly elected officials should be removed if they use the term Mister or Mrs?
Generally elected members in such positions are not 'fired'. If they abuse the mandate they've been given by those that elected them, they will likely be replaced next time around.

Not following parliamentary procedure may result in certain things not being given legitimacy. For example, an official meeting, if not called to order properly, may not have a mandate to accomplish what it sets out to do.

An MP that doesn't use gender neutral terms is probably not going to face anything more serious than a talking to. He or she could however, if such is decided by the powers that be, be fined, spanked, or subjected to water torture. It really depends...and considering the EU is pretty big on human rights, those last two are unlikely in the extreme.

Then you should probably come up with a better comparison when you start drawing up comparisons.
And you should do a better job of using some critical thinking skills on your own without being held by the hand. You claimed that by the nature of there being 'penalties' for certain actions, a thing became a law. I showed you how wrong you are.

Certain professions require certain standards of 'off duty' behaviour. Certain professions require that you behave as though you are never 'off duty'. I'm glad you understand this now.

Funny how the only reporter mentioned is this Simon Johnson person. It makes you wonder if the other news agencies simply copied and rewrote his article.

*shrug*

Can't prove it either way. If you want to go with that, that's fine, but the news source listed still says it's "banned" and "prohibited" to use such terms, so I have to go with the information I'm given.

Whatever, call a woman policeman sure, I don't care if you want to add female go ahead JUST DON'T BAN WORDS

Seriously, I don't care if people want to practice self censorship then like I care, Just so long as they let me say whatever the hell I like. Hell, even if they do get "banned" I will use them anyway like I do with the current "non-PC" stuff.

Please learn how to read. You are free to say woman policeman all you like.

*shrug*

Can't prove it either way. If you want to go with that, that's fine, but the news source listed still says it's "banned" and "prohibited" to use such terms, so I have to go with the information I'm given.

Yes. Heaven forbid you use your brain, and go hmmmm....they specifically avoid calling it a law...gee, I guess that means it isn't a law omg! Using terms like 'banned' and 'prohibited' doesn't change that fact.

Until you can show me the legislation you claim exists by virture of the use of those words in the article, one must assume that no such law exists. Do you see how that works? Amazing, isn't it!

Please learn how to read. You are free to say woman policeman all you like.

I can read very well, It was you who did not make yourself clear as to who's point you were backing up. I do not want to enter an argument however, Just please, do not insult my intelligence.

Think about it like this do you really want your government doing something ? the less your legislative body does the better.

How about with the fact that none of them actually say there has been a law passed?

First of all, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck - it's a duck. Whether it's a law or a rule or a procedure, if it carried with it punishment enacted and enforced by a governmental entity, it might as well be a law. It's even more compelling in that it intrudes into the person's private lives.

They all seem to be from the same source as almost exactly the same wording is used in each. And again, none of them go as far as to claim a law has been enacted. They all use the term 'guidelines'. Terms like 'banned/prohibited' etc are not backed up with any facts.

That's why I asked what the punishment would be.

Generally elected members in such positions are not 'fired'. If they abuse the mandate they've been given by those that elected them, they will likely be replaced next time around.

I doubt any of the people who elected them did so because they used gender-neutral terms.

Not following parliamentary procedure may result in certain things not being given legitimacy. For example, an official meeting, if not called to order properly, may not have a mandate to accomplish what it sets out to do.

Ok. Does that mean if they use the term "Mr." or "Mrs." while arguing for a bill, the bill would be illegitimate? That could make for some interesting court cases.

An MP that doesn't use gender neutral terms is probably not going to face anything more serious than a talking to. He or she could however, if such is decided by the powers that be, be fined, spanked, or subjected to water torture. It really depends...and considering the EU is pretty big on human rights, those last two are unlikely in the extreme.

Spankings sounded interesting. So, you're saying that the legis- excuse me, the recommendation is impotent and unenforceable, and entirely ridiculous? Good to know.

And you should do a better job of using some critical thinking skills on your own without being held by the hand. You claimed that by the nature of there being 'penalties' for certain actions, a thing became a law. I showed you how wrong you are.

Might as well be, especially if it intrudes into your off-time, when you're "not on the clock" so to speak.

Certain professions require certain standards of 'off duty' behaviour. Certain professions require that you behave as though you are never 'off duty'. I'm glad you understand this now.

Oh I do, and I think it's ridiculous. There was a case of a teacher being suspended here because she had pictures of her at the gun range up on her MySpace page. There's nothing illegal about going to the gun range in the US, but somehow they thought it was their prerogative to suspend her anyway for something legal that she does on her own time.

I find such things deplorable and unconscionable.

I can read very well, It was you who did not make yourself clear as to who's point you were backing up. I do not want to enter an argument however, Just please, do not insult my intelligence.

Yes, you're right. It's entirely too much to hope you'd read the thread before responding to the entirely misleading OP and the quoted misleading article. I just HATE it when people expect me to know what the fuck I'm talking about! Gosh!

Yes. Heaven forbid you use your brain, and go hmmmm....they specifically avoid calling it a law...gee, I guess that means it isn't a law omg! Using terms like 'banned' and 'prohibited' doesn't change that fact.

Until you can show me the legislation you claim exists by virture of the use of those words in the article, one must assume that no such law exists. Do you see how that works? Amazing, isn't it!

*plays soothing music*

There, there. It's quite evident, don't worry. :)

First of all, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck - it's a duck. Whether it's a law or a rule or a procedure, if it carried with it punishment enacted and enforced by a governmental entity, it might as well be a law.

Orly? Ok, in the future, in order to speak, you must request the floor. Thats how they do things in the US Senate, thats their procedure, so clearly its just like a law, right?!?

It's even more compelling in that it intrudes into the person's private lives.

Except it doesnt. It applies only to people of parliment during proceedings.

God. damnit.

Yes, you're right. It's entirely too much to hope you'd read the thread before responding to the entirely misleading OP and the quoted misleading article. I just HATE it when people expect me to know what the fuck I'm talking about! Gosh!

My god, Chill out, it's no big deal, Ever occurred to you that maybe people were responding in the space in-between *gasp* doing other stuff in real life and did not have the TIME to read all the pages... You know what, forget it, I will not get into an argument and will just leave you to do whatever it is you do.

Orly? Ok, in the future, in order to speak, you must request the floor. Thats how they do things in the US Senate, thats their procedure, so clearly its just like a law, right?!?

If you must request permission to speak 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year, yes it might as well be.

Except it doesnt. It applies only to people of parliment during proceedings.

God. damnit.

That's not what the article says.

First of all, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck - it's a duck. Whether it's a law or a rule or a procedure, if it carried with it punishment enacted and enforced by a governmental entity, it might as well be a law. It's even more compelling in that it intrudes into the person's private lives.

Enacted has a legal meaning. Refrain from using this misleading term.

As far as I can tell from reading the article, all that has been done is that some agency has published a pamphlet about gender neutral terms. There is no evidence beyond that in the article, or elsewhere that anything more serious has happened. Instead, you have the aforementioned misleading article, and people jumping up and down in a premature panic.

That's why I asked what the punishment would be. Depends on the system...in Canada we have something called a Party Whip that will verbally bitchslap an MP if they step out of line...officially very little will be done to an official who doesn't follow a procedure properly...other than, as I pointed out earlier, not following that procedure might have consequences built it.

I doubt any of the people who elected them did so because they used gender-neutral terms.

Ok. Does that mean if they use the term "Mr." or "Mrs." while arguing for a bill, the bill would be illegitimate? That could make for some interesting court cases. Doubtful. You should read Hansard sometime and see some of the crazy shit people say during debates.

Spankings sounded interesting. So, you're saying that the legis- excuse me, the recommendation Ah, now you're getting it.

is impotent and unenforceable, and entirely ridiculous? Good to know. Generally policy manuals, procedural rules etc are guidelines, not mandatory. Some that ARE mandatory may be so because of the need for procedural certainty (quorum etc).

In terms of say, drafting legislation, gender neutral terms are generally required these days, and if drafters don't do this, the legislation can be challenged. I'm fairly certain the EU already follows such guidelines. To me, this looks like a sort of 'heads up, join the 21 century' to MPs. A gentle reminder that the times, they are a changing. Impotent? Sure. I doubt it was intended to carry much punative power in the first place, despite the wild claims made by the OP.


Might as well be, especially if it intrudes into your off-time, when you're "not on the clock" so to speak. Sucks, but that's part of certain professions. Why do you think I left teaching? They tend to frown on teachers who engage in 'deviant sex' you see.



Oh I do, and I think it's ridiculous. There was a case of a teacher being suspended here because she had pictures of her at the gun range up on her MySpace page. There's nothing illegal about going to the gun range in the US, but somehow they thought it was their prerogative to suspend her anyway for something legal that she does on her own time.

I find such things deplorable and unconscionable. Meh, that's a discussion for another time. I've got some opinions on it as well, of course :D

Let's all run around screaming 'evil law evil law' some more...it's really fun.

Can we do that naked? :p

Think about it like this do you really want your government doing something ? the less your legislative body does the better.

well thats true for everything busy bodies ruin life

but at least they are trying to do something good and non-police state by giving the representatives of Europe a dandy leaflet of etiquette in parliament

did not have the TIME to read all the pages

you mean you couldn't be bothered to read up before you posted? how rude *calls EU to ban you*

My god, Chill out, it's no big deal, Ever occurred to you that maybe people were responding in the space in-between *gasp* doing other stuff in real life and did not have the TIME to read all the pages... You know what, forget it, I will not get into an argument and will just leave you to do whatever it is you do.

I apologise for robbing you of a justification to express your impotent rage. Facts are such a bummer!

well thats true for everything busy bodies ruin life

but at least they are trying to do something good and non-police state by giving the representatives of Europe a dandy leaflet of etiquette in parliament

Its their Parliament they can make whatever etiquette rules they want.
Really a normally thing in legislative bodies to determine the proper and respectful way to address ones peers.

If you must request permission to speak 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year, yes it might as well be.

This doesnt require anything like that either.

That's not what the article says.

Euro chiefs ban 'Miss' and 'Mrs'
The European Parliament has banned the terms 'Miss' and 'Mrs' in case they offend female MEPs.

The politically correct rules also mean a ban on Continental titles, such as Madame and Mademoiselle, Frau and Fraulein and Senora and Senorita.

Guidance issued in a new 'Gender-Neutral Language' pamphlet instead orders politicians to address female members by their full name only.

Officials have also ordered that 'sportsmen' be called 'athletes', 'statesmen' be referred to as 'political leaders' and even that 'synthetic' or 'artificial' be used instead of 'man-made'.

The guidance lists banned terms for describing professions, including fireman, air hostess, headmaster, policeman, salesman, manageress, cinema usherette and male nurse.

However MEPs are still allowed to refer to 'midwives' as there is no accepted male version of the job description.

The booklet also admits that "no gender-neutral term has been successfully proposed" to replace 'waiter' and 'waitress', allowing parliamentarians to use these words in a restaurant or café.

Thats twice at least it specifically mentions it being a procedural thing involving the politicians. There is no reason to think its a law except to howl "OMG EBIL PC LIBRUHLS BANNIN WORDZ!!!!!!!!!!!!"

That's not what the article says.

Actually, the article doesn't say what you're claiming either. The line about 'being able to use the term in a restaurant' actually lends support to my supposition that this is not even a hardline policy manual, but rather a modernisation of political language. A sort of 'idiot's guide to gender neutrality'.

I just think it's funny that people are so fired-up to assume the worst (OMG EBIL LAWS!) instead of you know...waiting for some sort of evidence first. But by all means, continue...my little exercise in futility is done, dinner calls! Tilt at windmills to your heart's content!


This has been nearly as enjoyable as a cigarette...I am sated :P

In German for example you say herrlich if something is magnificent, and you can say dämlich if something is sort of stupid or it sucks.
Wow.

I'm taking these two into my vocabulary.

Depends on the system...in Canada we have something called a Party Whip that will verbally bitchslap an MP if they step out of line...officially very little will be done to an official who doesn't follow a procedure properly...other than, as I pointed out earlier, not following that procedure might have consequences built it.

I want to witness a verbal bitchslap. It sounds like fun.

Doubtful. You should read Hansard sometime and see some of the crazy shit people say during debates.

Hansard? What's that? (sorry, not a legal expert)

In terms of say, drafting legislation, gender neutral terms are generally required these days, and if drafters don't do this, the legislation can be challenged. I'm fairly certain the EU already follows such guidelines. To me, this looks like a sort of 'heads up, join the 21 century' to MPs. A gentle reminder that the times, they are a changing. Impotent? Sure. I doubt it was intended to carry much punative power in the first place, despite the wild claims made by the OP.

Ah good. It was just a waste of money instead of government being really really stupid. Oh well - governments waste money all the time. It's like part of their creed.

Meh, that's a discussion for another time. I've got some opinions on it as well, of course :D

I'm sure you do.

In summation - it's an unimportant document that someone went to a lot of trouble to draft and print, but means nothing? Good to see your tax dollars are being wasted effectively, as usual. (not that we waste any less here)

Fuck them. I will use them anyway like all that other "gone to far" PC bullshit.
You can do whatever you want. Unless...

Are you a MEP? :eek2:

Just another step up the newspeak-ladder.
Not really, but I don't care. The Parliament could have whatever guidelines for conduct it chooses.

Does this really need to be legislated? Really?
Well, it isn't, so your question is pointelss.


Can't prove it either way.
Actually... Even by just looking at the article it should be clear as day that it's not a law. The articles speak of "pamphlets" and "booklets", not laws, regulations or directives.

First of all, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck - it's a duck. Whether it's a law or a rule or a procedure, if it carried with it punishment enacted and enforced by a governmental entity, it might as well be a law. It's even more compelling in that it intrudes into the person's private lives.

Does it? Are you sure it's not just limited to the Parliament itself.

As for the waiter/waitress thing: There are places to eat in the Parliament too.


Ok. Does that mean if they use the term "Mr." or "Mrs." while arguing for a bill, the bill would be illegitimate? That could make for some interesting court cases.
Seems to me that it's a code of conduct guideline, and would have no bearing on any bills...

Bills?

They don't really pass any bills, do they?


Spankings sounded interesting. So, you're saying that the legis- excuse me, the recommendation is impotent and unenforceable, and entirely ridiculous? Good to know.
Just like ethics guidelines in many cases, or guidelines that says you shouldn't appear nude before Parliament.

Yet, people do try to follow some of those.

Really a normally thing in legislative bodies to determine the proper and respectful way to address ones peers.

what ever happened to the days when politicians had fights and ran organized crime :(

Depends on the system...in Canada we have something called a Party Whip that will verbally bitchslap an MP if they step out of line...officially very little
Some may take that to be sexist, thus you are not to use the term again.

Humanslap shall be its replacement.

What? You didn't mean it in a sexist way and were just using it because it's part of the english language and commonly used as a non bigotedly-charged, perfectly normal term?

Too bad.

Quite similar to those that commonly use the term: 'man-made'
(Which the article states the EU parliament has also branded as unnacceptable and ordered "artificial" to be it's official replacement.)

See, it's fucking ridiculous and quite frankly, it doesn't matter if you think you are progressive for being brainwashed into this bullshit. 9/10 people you meet on the straight will be sane enough to not orgasm in delight about "progressing over the gender gap" of Mr. and Mrs. . . . or "overcoming the mysoginistic onslaught" of "man-made" and "man-kind" . . .

:rolleyes:

Some may take that to be sexist, thus you are not to use the term again.

Humanslap shall be its replacement.

I kinda lol'd.

I kinda lol'd.

I did lol. :D

That's not what the article says.
For some reason, I'm amused by the fact that you seem to be ready to unquestioningly accept what the article says. Instead of, well, doing some research for example.

You're welcome. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm)


In summation - it's an unimportant document that someone went to a lot of trouble to draft and print, but means nothing? Good to see your tax dollars are being wasted effectively, as usual. (not that we waste any less here)

Well, there's not that many "Tax dollars" floating around the EU. And it doesn't "mean nothing" either, it sends a signal. That's worth something.

what ever happened to the days when politicians had fights and ran organized crime :(
I'd welcome it back. It would cleanse the political gene pool and weed out the Whimpy-Kiddie-Baby-Whiners from the bunch.

Most of EU Parliament being Exhibit A of the WKBW's.

For some reason, I'm amused by the fact that you seem to be ready to unquestioningly accept what the article says. Instead of, well, doing some research for example.

You're welcome. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm)

Looks like a cool website. I'll have to toy around with it and see if I can find anything about this.

Well, there's not that many "Tax dollars" floating around the EU. And it doesn't "mean nothing" either, it sends a signal. That's worth something.

"We're a bunch of idiots?"

The line about 'being able to use the term in a restaurant' actually lends support to my supposition that this is not even a hardline policy manual, but rather a modernisation of political language.
It says itself that the thing only became lax about in the Restaurant is because they couldn't come up with a replacement word. . .
Wow.

I'm taking these two into my vocabulary.
Go for it. They are absolutely not bad words at all.
I kinda lol'd.

I did lol. :D

I was first and foremost making a point.

Although I did allow myself a rather hearty congratulatory chuckle, if I may be Frank. ;)

Although I did allow myself a rather hearty congratulatory chuckle, if I may be Frank. ;)

You may, if I can be Steve.

what ever happened to the days when politicians had fights and ran organized crime :(

that's now and in Chicago.

that's now and in Chicago.
OoOoOoO! Nice one!
You may, if I can be Steve.
You may, if I may be Bridget. :p

You may, if I may be Bridget. :p

>.<
<.>

Ok, I'm out of here.

Looks like a cool website. I'll have to toy around with it and see if I can find anything about this.
Doubtful, but knock yourself out. I'd like to see this booklet...


We're a bunch of idiots?

:cool:

:cool:

That should have been in quotes. As in, the people who made this thing were the ones saying it. I'm going back to edit... (curses at making mistakes)

That should have been in quotes. As in, the people who made this thing were the ones saying it. I'm going back to edit... (curses at making mistakes)

I liked it as it was :p

I liked it as it was :p

Of course, because Galloism is the idiot who doesn't know anything and that makes everyone happy.

Some may take that to be sexist, thus you are not to use the term again.

Humanslap shall be its replacement.

What? You didn't mean it in a sexist way and were just using it because it's part of the english language and commonly used as a non bigotedly-charged, perfectly normal term?

Too bad.


Except that 'man' tends to mean 'man', 'woman' tends to mean 'woman, and 'bitch' is colloquially used to refer to either, and literally only refers to dogs.

But, hey, points for trying.

Except that 'man' tends to mean 'man', 'woman' tends to mean 'woman, and 'bitch' is colloquially used to refer to either, and literally only refers to dogs.

But, hey, points for trying.

Main Entry: bitch
Pronunciation:
\ˈbich\
Function:
noun

1: the female of the dog or some other carnivorous mammals
2 a: a lewd or immoral woman b: a malicious, spiteful, or overbearing woman —sometimes used as a generalized term of abuse
3: something that is extremely difficult, objectionable, or unpleasant
4: complaint

A man is referred to as a "son of a bitch" while a "bitch" is always a woman.

A man is referred to as a "son of a bitch" while a "bitch" is always a woman.

Clearly, you've never heard "The Devil is a Loser (and He's My Bitch)" by Lordi.

Clearly, you've never heard "The Devil is a Loser (and He's My Bitch)" by Lordi.

In that case, he is ascribing to the devil two qualities in one word:

Femininity
Submissiveness

It's only used that way to add insult to injury, so to speak.

My admiration for Norman Tebbit, Thatcher and Nigel Farage increases with every such EU story.

In that case, he is ascribing to the devil two qualities in one word:

Femininity
Submissiveness

It's only used that way to add insult to injury, so to speak.

Yeah, or alternatively, he's using the word 'bitch' in the way it's often used, to suggest the person who serves the other person - male or female.

Except that 'man' tends to mean 'man', 'woman' tends to mean 'woman, and 'bitch' is colloquially used to refer to either, and literally only refers to dogs.

But, hey, points for trying.
Lol....weak. :p

So, you're wrong:

'bitch' is colloquially used to refer to either, and literally only refers to dogs.
Bitch is feminine. Nothing about men in there. Sorry, you lose. No points.

From Oxford:


bitch

• noun 1 a female dog, wolf, fox, or otter. 2 informal a woman whom one considers to be malicious or unpleasant. 3 black English a woman (used in a non-derogatory sense). 4 (a bitch) informal a difficult or unpleasant thing or situation.

Yeah, or alternatively, he's using the word 'bitch' in the way it's often used, to suggest the person who serves the other person - male or female.

No. You're only hurting yourself here. That just means that person is the "bitch" (read: stereotypical submissive female female to the stereotypical dominant male) of whatever relationship you're hypothetically discussing.

Lol....weak. :p

So, you're wrong:


Bitch is feminine. Nothing about men in there. Sorry, you lose. No points.

From Oxford:


bitch

• noun 1 a female dog, wolf, fox, or otter. 2 informal a woman whom one considers to be malicious or unpleasant. 3 black English a woman (used in a non-derogatory sense). 4 (a bitch) informal a difficult or unpleasant thing or situation.



No. You're only hurting yourself here. That just means that person is the "bitch" (read: female) of whatever relationship you're hypothetically discussing.

Ah, another person who doesn't even read their own sources.

What was the gender orientation of your fourth definition, again?

Ah, another person who doesn't even read their own sources.

What was the gender orientation of your fourth definition, again?

You're going to suggest that a bitchslap is slapping an unpleasant thing? It would seem more likely that it's referring to the second definition:

2 a: a lewd or immoral woman b: a malicious, spiteful, or overbearing woman —sometimes used as a generalized term of abuse

You're going to suggest that a bitchslap is slapping an unpleasant thing? It would seem more likely that it's referring to the second definition:

2 a: a lewd or immoral woman b: a malicious, spiteful, or overbearing woman —sometimes used as a generalized term of abuse

And there we have another, non-gendered definition.

Etymologically, 'bitch' is feminine. It's literal meaning refers to feminine - specifically, of an animal, and some of it's common usages refer to the feminine, but it is also used as a non-gendered term.

Ah, another person who doesn't even read their own sources.

What was the gender orientation of your fourth definition, again?
About a thing or situation....not masculine.

You're making yourself look ridiculous. . .

And there we have another, non-gendered definition.

Etymologically, 'bitch' is feminine. It's literal meaning refers to feminine - specifically, of an animal, and some of it's common usages refer to the feminine, but it is also used as a non-gendered term.

Where is that nongendered?

Lewd immoral woman - seems female.
A malicious, spiteful, overbearing woman - sometimes used as a generalized form of abuse

Therefore, even if you take that in the most liberal way - generalized form of abuse - it's referring to a person being the former definition - A malicious, spiteful, overbearing woman.

And there we have another, non-gendered definition.

Etymologically, 'bitch' is feminine. It's literal meaning refers to feminine - specifically, of an animal, and some of it's common usages refer to the feminine, but it is also used as a non-gendered term.
I'd say most of it's common usage is about women, but that's irrelevant because you proved yourself wrong by admitting that, while it's feminine it can be neutral, but not masculine as you stated below:

Except that 'man' tends to mean 'man', 'woman' tends to mean 'woman, and 'bitch' is colloquially used to refer to either, and [i]literally only refers to dogs.

Like I said, no points.

Where is that nongendered?

Lewd immoral woman - seems female.
A malicious, spiteful, overbearing woman - sometimes used as a generalized form of abuse

Therefore, even if you take that in the most liberal way - generalized form of abuse - it's referring to a person being the former definition - A malicious, spiteful, overbearing woman.

Those are feminine forms of it but the neutral form of it would be "man working the late shift is a bitch".

It doesn't matter because we got Grave to prove himself wrong when he claimed that Bitch could be masculine or feminine, though;)

Some may take that to be sexist, thus you are not to use the term again.

Humanslap shall be its replacement.

What? You didn't mean it in a sexist way and were just using it because it's part of the english language and commonly used as a non bigotedly-charged, perfectly normal term?
Huh?

I chose that term precisely because of its offensiveness. It is a perjorative term, relating to the physical assault of a woman by an abusive man. It has a 'feminising' impact when used in reference to the 'victim' being male. It's a terrible, bigoted word and that's precisely why I used it. It's almost as bad as calling a man a douchebag.

I'd say most of it's common usage is about women, but that's irrelevant because you proved yourself wrong by admitting that, while it's feminine it can be neutral, but not masculine as you [incorrectly] stated below:



Like I said, no points.

Interestingly, you quoted me showing how it is literally specific to animals, and failed to show that it's common usage was limited to feminine gender... and yet, to your mind, that was somehow validation for you.

Since you failed to grasp that 'neutral' gendering of a noun means it is equally appropriate for masculine as for feminine usage (or, indeed, for truly neautral-gendered usage), I can't pretend to be too surprised.

This is a stupid discussion. 'Bitch' can be used to refer to both men and women, and is used thusly quite often, even in our popular media. For example, if I say to TAI, "Quit being such a whiny bitch", it's not going to fly over his head as an insult meant for a woman, and therefore non-applicable. Nor would he assume I'm calling him a woman, simply because I used the term 'bitch'.

Pardon the delay: final exams call.

1) no they will arrest him if he goes about committing hate speech in public
2) Geert Wilders was refused entry because hes an extremist which is rather fitting really
3) we have never tried to be the shining beam of democracy from what I recall
1) I don't believe that would be his intention. If you fail to see the difference between not supporting legislation restricting and desiring to run about shouting racist remarks oneself you are less worth my time than I had anticipated.

I don't deny that racism is undesirable; I believe that legislation against it is an infraction against freedom of speech and expression, and a "slippery slope" situation.

"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all. " -- H.L. Mencken

2) Geert Wilders is a member of the Dutch parliament. Additionally, he was not refused upon the grounds of being an "extremist" as you put it, but because (according to your government) he might disrupt public safety, despite being invited by two members of the House of Lords. His prohibition from entering the UK violates fundamental democratic principals: your government is taking a stance on what are, and what are not acceptable beliefs. In this instance, through restricting him, they declare that public order (specifically among Muslim populations who are intolerant) is more valuable than the freedom of discussion of modern demographic issues.

Additionally, Mr. Wilders has shown this video in other EU member-states such as Denmark, and will be visiting Italy. He has also visited the United States on several occasions. To reject him violates fundamental EU principles, such as the free transfer of individuals.

3) Of course: I've never heard the United Kingdom pride itself on its long and enduring history of democracy -- that is to say, your parliament -- nor, say, the Glorious Revolution, the Bill of Rights, and all those old, old dusty documents and irrelevant events.

the laws are to allow police to arrest those going about in public threatening minorities and such nobody cares about silly songs as long as they are not being broadcast
You've missed the point. If they are threatening minorities with physical harm, they need to be arrested. If they are merely throwing around words, that is their right.

and you know what? people get uppy if I poke fun of disabled people now which is completely different to the 90's and certainly the 80's so I guess hate speech laws work, especially in the workplace
Your reference lacks credibility: your personal experiences with the reduction in permissibility of speaking poorly of the disabled is irrelevant in any legitimate debate. If you want to make that debate, you would do far better to find legitimate statistics to support your argument.

and the state doesn't care what you do in private because the issue is the affect you have on the people you are calling whatever you call them
No, actually the state does. If something is illegal, it is illegal in all respects. Why do you think, say, Neo-Nazis have their homes raided across Europe on suspected propagation of hate? As they spread "hate speech", their private residences can by nature be invaded. The difference is the ability to establish legitimate proof: in private, one could claim another said something and have nothing but one's word to justify it. That fails to qualify as evidence in a respectable court.

no because thats discrimination and its wrong for someone to be treated as less of a person because of whatever... as such they can sue your arse off for it
You're failing to see the fundamental error with your statement. I acknowledged that it is discrimination (I stated "they should have the right to discriminate in their hiring"). Your brilliant revelation that discriminating is discrimination is not a counter-point.

The point is, the owner of a business should have complete authority over how he chooses to direct his enterprise. If he chooses to decrease the competitiveness of his business through discrimination by race, sex or otherwise, he is decreasing his ability to acquire labour. In doing so, he loses money. Thus, if you have even followed to this point without being overcome by such disrespect for discrimination laws (which are all that make it legally incorrect), you will note that it is in his interest to not discriminate. Likewise, if a store owner refuses to admit or sell his product to certain sorts of people, he loses money. It is in his interest to do so.

My point being, discrimination is resolvable by non-governmental measures to an equivalent level. The government forcing someone to hire minorities does not resolve the fundamental issue: the owner's intolerance. Likewise, neither does the private alternative, but at least they do it of their own will, even if for profit's sake, rather than being forced to by the government (and then bitching about equal opportunity, and how "affirmative action" is nothing but racism in and of itself).

If the government feel themselves "above" racism to the extent that they can determine which groups are favoured and which aren't, they are entirely incorrect. To legislate on the basis of race is inherently racist.

Interestingly, you quoted me showing how it is literally specific to animals, and failed to show that it's common usage was limited to feminine gender... and yet, to your mind, that was somehow validation for you.

Since you failed to grasp that 'neutral' gendering of a noun means it is equally appropriate for masculine as for feminine usage (or, indeed, for truly neautral-gendered usage), I can't pretend to be too surprised.
Except that 'man' tends to mean 'man', 'woman' tends to mean 'woman, and 'bitch' is colloquially used to refer to either
Yada yada yada....I don't really care about you trying to twist your way out of this one. I, and everyone who views this page can see your blunder in the above quote. You can pretend it has to do with animals or understand that it has everything to do with the way you said bitch 'refers to either [man or woman]," which it doesn't. :)
Huh?

*SNIP*
Should have stayed with "huh?" ;)

This is a stupid discussion. 'Bitch' can be used to refer to both men and women, and is used thusly quite often, even in our popular media. For example, if I say to TAI, "Quit being such a whiny bitch", it's not going to fly over his head as an insult meant for a woman, and therefore non-applicable. Nor would he assume I'm calling him a woman, simply because I used the term 'bitch'.
Yes, that's exactly what I'd assume, and I'd be right to. If you called me a whiny bitch I'd take it that you were calling me a whiny annoying woman and that I was being stereotypically woman like.

You're going to suggest that a bitchslap is slapping an unpleasant thing?

I chose that term precisely because of its offensiveness. It is a perjorative term, relating to the physical assault of a woman by an abusive man. It has a 'feminising' impact when used in reference to the 'victim' being male. It's a terrible, bigoted word and that's precisely why I used it. It's almost as bad as calling a man a douchebag.

Thank you Neesika.

Thank you Neesika.

The 'bitch' in 'bitchslap' is deliberately gendered.

Hence, when TAI removed it, to replace it 'humourously' - I pointed out that it became nonsensical.

I think you may have missed the point.

Should have stayed with "huh?" ;)Why...because admitting to using a bigoted, perjorative term ruins your little fantasy wherein which such words are free of bias, and therefore not super plus ungood:confused:

Yes, that's exactly what I'd assume, and I'd be right to. If you called me a whiny bitch I'd take it that you were calling me a whiny annoying woman and that I was being stereotypically woman like.
Except a woman who is a 'bitch' is generally acting in a sort of agressive, masculine manner. A man who is a 'bitch' is acting in a whiny 'female' manner. There are all sorts of negative gendered references depending on which gender it is being applied to.

Thank you Neesika.

I live only to serve.

The 'bitch' in 'bitchslap' is deliberately gendered.

Hence, when TAI removed it, to replace it 'humourously' - I pointed out that it became nonsensical.

I think you may have missed the point.

Precisely.

You can pretend it has to do with animals or understand that it has everything to do with the way you said bitch 'refers to either [man or woman]," which it doesn't. :)


I notice that, in the quote you cited, you carefully excised the point in the original where I clearly stated that it's literal meaning is a reference to an animal, so your claim that my argument has somehow changed now by 'pretending' that 'it has to do with animals' is either dishonest, or just nonsensical. Given the fact that you appear to have deliberately snipped it for that effect, I'm having to assume dishonesty.

Given the fact that you, yourself, have provided sources that show that 'bitch' can femininely gendered, but isn't NECESSARILY so, it seems ironic that you're attempting to claim otherwise. Aagin - the question arises of whether you really don't get it, or are deliberately pretending. On that one, I'll reserve judgement. I prefer to think you must know, really.

The 'bitch' in 'bitchslap' is deliberately gendered.

Hence, when TAI removed it, to replace it 'humourously' - I pointed out that it became nonsensical.

I think you may have missed the point.

I think you should review the post in question:

Original Post

Depends on the system...in Canada we have something called a Party Whip that will verbally bitchslap an MP if they step out of line...officially very littleSome may take that to be sexist, thus you are not to use the term again.

Humanslap shall be its replacement.

Where did he extract the bitch out bitchslap and make it a separate nongendered term? He replaced it with humanslap, which is now a nongendered term. The "bitch" in "bitchslap" specifically refers to a woman being slapped by an abusive husband, as Neesika already pointed out. By changing it to humanslap, it is now nongendered.

Thank you Neesika.

Attempt to illustrate:

"Getting my 'shit' together" - the common parlance uses of the word 'shit' are almost infinite, and in most cases, 'shit' equates to a kind of nebulous, non-specific 'stuff'.

If I call someone a shithead, however, I am suggesting a SPECIFIC usage of the word 'shit'.

There's a parallel there.

(We can do the same thing with that most versatile of words, 'fuck', similarly).

Grave_n_idle, I don't know why you think that you can keep stretching this out and it somehow makes you more right, but it doesn't.

You said bitch could be either masculine or feminine or refers to animals. I said no, not masculine.

Then I and Galloism both showed you, by citing Oxford (I don't know who Galloism cited) that bitch is either female or can be used in a neutral way...like if your job is a bitch to do, but not in a masculine way. Thus, you lose. And that's the last time I'll repeat my victory, because while it is enjoyable seeing you refusing to give up on a ridiculous and false point, it does get a little tiresome on the fingers.

By changing it to humanslap, it is now nongendered.

As would be the word 'bitch', if considered in isolation. Which we are considering 'human' in, if we are replacing 'bitch' with it for it's alleged gender-orientation-less-ness.

Attempt to illustrate:

"Getting my 'shit' together" - the common parlance uses of the word 'shit' are almost infinite, and in most cases, 'shit' equates to a kind of nebulous, non-specific 'stuff'.

If I call someone a shithead, however, I am suggesting a SPECIFIC usage of the word 'shit'.

There's a parallel there.

(We can do the same thing with that most versatile of words, 'fuck', similarly).
Please do not change the subject.

Grave_n_idle, I don't know why you think that you can keep stretching this out and it somehow makes you more right, but it doesn't.

You said bitch could be either masculine or feminine or refers to animals. I said no, not masculine.

Then I and Galloism both showed you, by citing Oxford (I don't know who Galloism cited) that bitch is either female or can be used in a neutral way...like if you're job is a bitch to do, but not a feminine way. Thus, you lose. And that's the last time I'll repeat my victory, because while it is enjoyable seeing you refusing to give up on a ridiculous and false point, it does get a little tiresome on the fingers.

It's like watching an ant clinging to the bottom of a carried case, proclaiming his strength at lifting such an immense weight...

Where did he extract the bitch out bitchslap and make it a separate nongendered term? He replaced it with humanslap, which is now a nongendered term. The "bitch" in "bitchslap" specifically refers to a woman being slapped by an abusive husband, as Neesika already pointed out. By changing it to humanslap, it is now nongendered.

*facepalm*

Is English your first language? I'm honestly curious. Because the meaning behind 'bitchslap' is not the definition. When I hear the term 'bitchslap' I actually picture a man being smacked across the mouth with an open hand by another man. It's a contemptuous act. It's generally not all that hard, but it's intended to hurt one's pride.

When you 'make someone your bitch', do you really think it means 'turning into a woman'? No, it means dominating someone, demeaning them. It's an offensive term, replete with gender inclusivity :D

Please do not change the subject.

How comical.

As would be the word 'bitch', if considered in isolation. Which we are considering 'human' in, if we are replacing 'bitch' with it for it's alleged gender-orientation-less-ness.

Even if I consent that "bitch" can be nongendered, it does not matter. We were discussing the Atlantian's original joke - replacing bitchslap with humanslap in order to make it nongendered. Since bitch in this situation specifically refers to an abused woman, replacing it with "human" would now make it nongendered, which is what this article is all about.

In summary, his joke was good and very funny.

Grave_n_idle, I don't know why you think that you can keep stretching this out and it somehow makes you more right, but it doesn't.

You said bitch could be either masculine or feminine or refers to animals. I said no, not masculine.

Then I and Galloism both showed you, by citing Oxford (I don't know who Galloism cited) that bitch is either female or can be used in a neutral way...like if your job is a bitch to do, but not in a masculine way. Thus, you lose. And that's the last time I'll repeat my victory, because while it is enjoyable seeing you refusing to give up on a ridiculous and false point, it does get a little tiresome on the fingers.

I love how you fail to back up your arguments, yet claim victory anyway. Oh wait, I meant to say 'tire of'. The only one stretching things here is you.

Linguistics (which is what this basically is now) bore me.

Linguistics (which is what this basically is now) bore me.True 'nuff.

It's an attempt to deflect attention away from the brutal beating his misleading OP took.

Let the thread die. In a month or two, TAI will link to it in his sig and claim some sort of victory.

True 'nuff.

It's an attempt to deflect attention away from the brutal beating his misleading OP took.

Let the thread die. In a month or two, TAI will link to it in his sig and claim some sort of victory.
The only thing brutal is the sheer brutal weight of this victory belt hanging around my waist. . . and how brutal it must be for you to look at my sig and see you lost arguments staring back at you ;)

I love how you fail to back up your arguments, yet claim victory anyway. Oh wait, I meant to say 'tire of'. The only one stretching things here is you.
Well, not really. A point was made. Galloisn and I backed it up using the dictionary and Grave twitched around and tried to snake out of it by switching topics....and he didn't even deny switching topics but rather just said it was "comical" that I called him on it. It may be, but that doesn't equal denial of doing it. . .

*facepalm*

Is English your first language? I'm honestly curious. Because the meaning behind 'bitchslap' is not the definition. When I hear the term 'bitchslap' I actually picture a man being smacked across the mouth with an open hand by another man. It's a contemptuous act. It's generally not all that hard, but it's intended to hurt one's pride.

When you 'make someone your bitch', do you really think it means 'turning into a woman'? No, it means dominating someone, demeaning them. It's an offensive term, replete with gender inclusivity :D
Getting frustrated that he is beating you so you result to ad hominem attacks....now, now.

Anyway, I already owned Grave on this point, but have a look back a few pages for the answer:

Yeah, or alternatively, he's using the word 'bitch' in the way it's often used, to suggest the person who serves the other person - male or female.

No. You're only hurting yourself here. That just means that person is the "bitch" (read: stereotypical submissive female to the stereotypical dominant male) of whatever relationship you're hypothetically discussing.

It's like watching an ant clinging to the bottom of a carried case, proclaiming his strength at lifting such an immense weight...
I'll take that as your admission of defeat, thank you very much.

*takes*

Well, not really. A point was made. Galloisn and I backed it up using the dictionary and Grave twitched around and tried to snake out of it by switching topics....


I maintained the same argument from beginning to end, and clearly showed how even your own sources align with that argument.

What you appear to be calling me 'switching topics', was an offhanded comment intended to illustrate to another poster the TYPE of argument. It even said as much in that post.

Again, when all else fails, it appears you're not unwilling to use dishonesty to try to score a 'victory'.


and he didn't even deny switching topics but rather just said it was "comical" that I called him on it. It may be, but that doesn't equal denial of doing it. . .


I didn't deny that I was 'switching topics' because the post you're (apparently) referring to clearly stated that it was illustrative of a parallel, NOT an extension or conclusion of the argument.

Thus - you were either being 'comical'... or nonsensical. Perhaps I erred on the side of charity when I assumed you were in jest?

I'll take that as your admission of defeat, thank you very much.

*takes*

Apparently, you've not let the actual facts stand in the way of your efforts in this particular quibble, so far, so - feel free.

You think you've gained something from it? Be my guest.

How about that OP, eh?

How about we return to the fundamentals here: people feel the need to legally force restrictions against their insecurities on the rest of the populace, and thus make laws such as those in the OP.

People then, feeling they derive some moral high-ground from supporting such measures, blindly accept their government's restriction of their behaviour.

How about that OP, eh?

How about we return to the fundamentals here: people feel the need to legally force restrictions against their insecurities on the rest of the populace, and thus make laws such as those in the OP.

People then, feeling they derive some moral high-ground from supporting such measures, blindly accept their government's restriction of their behaviour.

Yes please. This, a thousand fucking times this.^

We should instead say things like 'female policeman' and 'male nurse'. That makes things much simpler, and prevents the disintegration of Western civilisation.

What would be wrong about using the term policewoman?

What about a server?

Because they do more then just serve they wait on you.

How about that OP, eh?

How about we return to the fundamentals here: people feel the need to legally force restrictions against their insecurities on the rest of the populace, and thus make laws such as those in the OP.

People then, feeling they derive some moral high-ground from supporting such measures, blindly accept their government's restriction of their behaviour.

You haven't been on NSG long, have you?

Hansard? What's that? (sorry, not a legal expert)

A hansard my furry friend is a document that is a copy of everything (almost everything) that is said in a house of parliament while parliament is sitting.

You haven't been on NSG long, have you?
What is relevant was the waning of my interest in the diachronic linguistics of 'bitch slap'.

What is relevant was the waning of my interest in the diachronic linguistics of 'bitch slap'.

This is NSG.

This is NSG.

More exclamation points, please.

And kindly illustrate whether or not you kicked someone into a hole, as you said it.

This is NSG.
Thank you for feeling the need to enlighten me.

More exclamation points, please.

I already did the "This. Is. SPARTA!!!" reference a couple days ago. This was a simple statement.

And kindly illustrate whether or not you kicked someone into a hole, as you said it.

No, but I bitchslapped someone. :p

I already did the "This. Is. SPARTA!!!" reference a couple days ago. This was a simple statement.



No, but I bitchslapped someone. :p

Into a hole?

I live for the noise....

Into a hole?

I live for the noise....

Must be another joke/reference I'm not getting...

What is relevant was the waning of my interest in the diachronic linguistics of 'bitch slap'.

It's called a joke dude, one which you will understand more once you start reading many more threads here.

Must be another joke/reference I'm not getting...

Two references, actually, one of which you already got.

Two references, actually, one of which you already got.

Yeah, but I'm lost on the other one. Is it from the same movie?

Yeah, but I'm lost on the other one. Is it from the same movie?

No, entirely disconnected, except that people falling into holes, after being kicked by Spartans, make humourous noises. Apparently.

It's an Izzard reference. To chiropractors, actually. It's usually fairly safe to assume that if anything seems just a little too surreal, it's an Izzard reference. :)

No, entirely disconnected, except that people falling into holes, after being kicked by Spartans, make humourous noises. Apparently.

It's an Izzard reference. To chiropractors, actually. It's usually fairly safe to assume that if anything seems just a little too surreal, it's an Izzard reference. :)

Oh. I don't know who Izzard is... *googles*

Oh. I don't know who Izzard is... *googles*

Google, indeed.

Izzard is the spiritual bastard-step-child of Monty Python. And looks great in a dress.... so... the fashion-bastard-step-child, also, I guess.

Google, indeed.

Izzard is the spiritual bastard-step-child of Monty Python. And looks great in a dress.... so... the fashion-bastard-step-child, also, I guess.

Oh Eddie Izzard! I didn't put it together. Yeah, I know who that is. I just haven't seen him very much.

Oh Eddie Izzard! I didn't put it together. Yeah, I know who that is. I just haven't seen him very much.

There's quite a lot of him on Youtube, if you can stomach your surreal comedy in 5 minute glimpses, but the best cure for your condition is to wait until you see a good price on the 5 DVD box-set (like the one I have), and grab half a day of delicious Izzard-ness in one bite.

Like I said, it totally makes sense to call a woman a policeman, or a fireman, or a chairman.
Yes...because man also means human in English language.

However here's a few alternatives for your list:
Policeman = police, low rank noble metal
Chairman = bureaucrat, sofarian
Fireman = smokie

:tongue:

How about that OP, eh?

How about we return to the fundamentals here: people feel the need to legally force restrictions against their insecurities on the rest of the populace, and thus make laws such as those in the OP.

People then, feeling they derive some moral high-ground from supporting such measures, blindly accept their government's restriction of their behaviour.

Except that this pamphlet forces no legal restrictions on the populace.

Rolling squid;14608105']won't mean anything, noone will pay any attention, and life will continue as usual.

By the way, one would guess that pro-gender-equality activists could work on something more useful. Like, dunno... the horrible statistics about violence against women even within their homes? Womens' unemployment rate, expecially in southern Europe? The low numbers of women in politics?

No, they have to go for this "gender-neutrality" idiocy. Which, by the way, would require a new grammatical gender to be introduced in two-gender-only languages like Italian, French, or Spanish...

Idiots.

By the way, one would guess that pro-gender-equality activists could work on something more useful. Like, dunno... the horrible statistics about violence against women even within their homes? Womens' unemployment rate, expecially in southern Europe? The low numbers of women in politics?

No, they have to go for this "gender-neutrality" idiocy. Which, by the way, would require a new grammatical gender to be introduced in two-gender-only languages like Italian, French, or Spanish...

Idiots.

Yes, clearly this is the ONLY thing that a gender equity organisation (http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/gender_equality/index_en.html) does. Bitch about language.

Oh wait. That's not even remotely true.

But I guess because this article complained about one thing, using misleading terms to fire up the fevered imaginations of those on the lookout for PC-world domination, that MUST meant that this is the only focus of gender equity in the world today. That is clearly supported by the lack of a comprehensive list of other activities in the OP's article. There is no other explanation. Such a balanced piece of journalism would of course include these other activities if they existed!

And another argument could be made: What RIGHT does the EU Parliament have to control speech, even more so non-hate speech?

Have fun being racist, sexist, and political and economic failures, leftists.
*shockgasphorror*

TAi complaining about something that doesn't actually exist in reality, and others blaming this non-existent thing on an entire spectrum of political thought?!?

Well, blow me down.

Of course, because Galloism is the idiot who doesn't know anything and that makes everyone happy.

Well, it wasn't me who talked about European tax dollars ;)

How about that OP, eh?

How about we return to the fundamentals here: people feel the need to legally force restrictions...
Right, so did you find the law yet? Or are you just ranting and making shit up?

Well, it wasn't me who talked about European tax dollars ;)

Tax Euros. Excuuuuuuuuse me. Everyone knew what I meant.

Considering the wide range of progressive, human rights-based initiatives entered into by the EU

lol

Anyway, I don't really give a shit, but I really want to know who these people are that actually find terms like 'sportsman' offensive, and view someone using that word as discriminatory. I thought such bizarreness only existed in mythology.

lol

Anyway, I don't really give a shit, but I really want to know who these people are that actually find terms like 'sportsman' offensive, and view someone using that word as discriminatory. I thought such bizarreness only existed in mythology.

I view a word like 'sportsman' as unnecessarily divisive. We're a reasonably intelligent species, most of whom are somewhat aware that vocabularies are evolving things. The idea that we SHOULD stick to vocabulary content that is - at best - somewhere between misleading and inaccurate - JUST for the sake of 'tradition', is nonsensical.

We're not talking about actual laws here, but even this kind of 'rule' should be irrelevent. Why wouldn't you change your phrasing slightly to stop causing unnecessary offense? Why would somone oppose slightly altering their use of vocabulary? It's not like the English language is short on words.

I view a word like 'sportsman' as unnecessarily divisive. We're a reasonably intelligent species, most of whom are somewhat aware that vocabularies are evolving things. The idea that we SHOULD stick to vocabulary content that is - at best - somewhere between misleading and inaccurate - JUST for the sake of 'tradition', is nonsensical.


I don't think anybody is saying you shouldn't. Say what you like, but it's silly to accuse anyone of using the term 'sportsman' as being a sexist (not saying you are personally).


Why wouldn't you change your phrasing slightly to stop causing unnecessary offense?

Again, I don't think most if not all of those words ever really caused offence in the first place.

Tax Euros. Excuuuuuuuuse me. Everyone knew what I meant.

:tongue:

Found any laws yet, btw?

:tongue:

Found any laws yet, btw?

Honestly I haven't had a chance yet. I've been busy.

I don't think anybody is saying you shouldn't. Say what you like, but it's silly to accuse anyone of using the term 'sportsman' as being a sexist (not saying you are personally).


No, a LOT of people say we should. They argue against the pervasive 'evils' of 'PC' and make a hell of a noise about why they shouldn't have to change how they speak, act, etc.

Because, apparently, not acting like a dick is too much to ask.


Again, I don't think most if not all of those words ever really caused offence in the first place.

Maybe not to you.... what's your experience from other perspectives?

And - would it be unreasonable to change vocabulary to exclude or avoid words that MIGHT cause offence?

There are more than a quarter of a million words 'in' the English language. It is a constant source of amazement to me that some people seem to feel it's too much of a hardship, too much of a handicap, to try to express themselves in a mere 249,999 words.

No, a LOT of people say we should. They argue against the pervasive 'evils' of 'PC' and make a hell of a noise about why they shouldn't have to change how they speak, act, etc.

Because, apparently, not acting like a dick is too much to ask.


I think what's happening here is, perhaps based on a misunderstanding, is that they are complaining about the idea of speech being forcibly restricted. As well as the money that went into it.


Maybe not to you.... what's your experience from other perspectives?

And - would it be unreasonable to change vocabulary to exclude or avoid words that MIGHT cause offence?


But I don't even think that a word like 'sportsman' MIGHT cause offence, no more than the word 'hello'.

I think what's happening here is, perhaps based on a misunderstanding, is that they are complaining about the idea of speech being forcibly restricted. As well as the money that went into it.


And there's my problem with it, to be honest.

There is no ultimate and absolute right to use the entire vocabulary of the language, or ANY language.

You can have total freedom to express your thoughts, and STILL manage to do so within the two-hundred-and-forty-nine-THOUSAND-and-something OTHER words of the language that are not controversial.

The idea that 'speech' is 'forcibly restricted' by limiting the number of choices of SOME particular wording, is somewhat comical.


But I don't even think that a word like 'sportsman' MIGHT cause offence, no more than the word 'hello'.

Except that, in English, 'hello' isn't implicitly gendered.

Not everyone wants to be considered a linguistic afterthought.

By the way, one would guess that pro-gender-equality activists could work on something more useful. Like, dunno... the horrible statistics about violence against women even within their homes? Womens' unemployment rate, expecially in southern Europe? The low numbers of women in politics?

No that sort i stuff is to hard much better to come up with a book of guidelines for MEP's

Fail, as usual. Damn EU.

No, a LOT of people say we should. They argue against the pervasive 'evils' of 'PC' and make a hell of a noise about why they shouldn't have to change how they speak, act, etc.

Because, apparently, not acting like a dick is too much to ask.

And how exactly is using the terms "policeman" and "policewoman" "Mrs" and "Mr" acting like a dick?

seems OTT to me

And there's my problem with it, to be honest.

There is no ultimate and absolute right to use the entire vocabulary of the language, or ANY language.

You can have total freedom to express your thoughts, and STILL manage to do so within the two-hundred-and-forty-nine-THOUSAND-and-something OTHER words of the language that are not controversial.

The idea that 'speech' is 'forcibly restricted' by limiting the number of choices of SOME particular wording, is somewhat comical.


That's not the point.


Except that, in English, 'hello' isn't implicitly gendered.


1) Arguably, neither is sportsman, considering the etymology of 'man', and the fact that 'man' has two meanings.

2) That still doesn't change the fact that I'm pretty sure nobody will be offended by it.

And how exactly is using the terms "policeman" and "policewoman" "Mrs" and "Mr" acting like a dick?

That's another thing, it's pretty insane to suggest that saying 'policeman' is acting like a dick, and only promotes hostility etc...

One has to have already been looking to get offended or looking to pick a fight about something, to be offended by the use of Mr. or Mrs. or statesman or whatever.

The idea that 'speech' is 'forcibly restricted' by limiting the number of choices of SOME particular wording, is somewhat comical.

Yeah! This is why the US Constitution and many liberally democratic Constitutions don't contain clauses dealing with the limiting (or protecting) of speech, especially not speech certain people find offensive while others think it is totally acceptable. Because if they did, it would be comical!

Yeah! This is why the US Constitution and many liberally democratic Constitutions don't contain clauses dealing with the limiting (or protecting) of speech, especially not speech certain people find offensive while others think it is totally acceptable. Because if they did, it would be comical!

If a quarter of a million plus words, minus your chosen favourite racial slur or gender jibe or ethnic insult... is NOT enough for you to express yourself clearly? You've got nothing worth hearing, and don't deserve protected speech.

And how exactly is using the terms "policeman" and "policewoman" "Mrs" and "Mr" acting like a dick?

I'm sure you'll be pointing to the quote where I said that, eh?

If a quarter of a million plus words, minus your chosen favourite racial slur or gender jibe or ethnic insult... is NOT enough for you to express yourself clearly? You've got nothing worth hearing, and don't deserve protected speech.

However, man is a nongendered term. It can refer to both males and females.

2 a: individual , person <a man could get killed there> b: the individual who can fulfill or who has been chosen to fulfill one's requirements <she's your man>Therefore, sportsman, policeman, and fireman can all refer to either males or females.

That's not the point.


It's not? Then what exactly, do you think, is?


1) Arguably, neither is sportsman, considering the etymology of 'man', and the fact that 'man' has two meanings.


'Sportsman' is intrinsically gendered.


2) That still doesn't change the fact that I'm pretty sure nobody will be offended by it.

And, as a thought experiment, if I were to say I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be offended by me saying you had sex with children.... what would that be worth?

However, man is a nongendered term. It can refer to both males and females.

Therefore, sportsman, policeman, and fireman can all refer to either males or females.

sports·man

noun

Definition:

1. man engaging in sports: a man who participates in sports

sports·man

noun

Definition:

1. man engaging in sports: a man who participates in sports

sports·man (spôrtsmn, sprts-)
n.
1. A man who is active in sports.
2. A person whose conduct and attitude exhibit sportsmanship.

If a quarter of a million plus words, minus your chosen favourite racial slur or gender jibe or ethnic insult... is NOT enough for you to express yourself clearly? You've got nothing worth hearing, and don't deserve protected speech.

Fortunately, in liberal democracies, one does not earn rights based on anything other than being alive. That's what natural rights are.

sports·man

noun

Definition:

1. man engaging in sports: a man who participates in sports


sports·man
Pronunciation:
\ˈspȯrts-mən\
Function:
noun
Date:
circa 1707

1 : a person who engages in sports (as hunting or fishing)
2 : a person who shows sportsmanship



Main Entry:
po·lice·man
Pronunciation:
\pə-ˈlēs-mən\
Function:
noun
Date:
1801

1 : a member of a police force
2 : one held to resemble a policeman <making the United States the policeman for the whole wide world — R. B. Long>
Main Entry:
fire·man
Pronunciation:
\-mən\
Function:
noun
Date:
14th century

1 : a person who tends or feeds fires : stoker
2 : a member of a fire department : firefighter
3 : an enlisted man in the navy who works with engineering machinery
4 : a relief pitcher in baseball

I see lots of nongender definitions for those words.

Fortunately, in liberal democracies, one does not earn rights based on anything other than being alive. That's what natural rights are.

'natural rights' are bullshit.

Your wishful thinking doesn't constitute a legitimate justification for anything.

'natural rights' are bullshit.

Your wishful thinking doesn't constitute a legitimate justification for anything.

So, by being born in the US, and being currently alive, you do not have certain rights guarenteed by the constitution?

So, by being born in the US, and being currently alive, you do not have certain rights guarenteed by the constitution?

If you do? There's nothing 'natural' about them.

If a quarter of a million plus words, minus your chosen favourite racial slur or gender jibe or ethnic insult... is NOT enough for you to express yourself clearly? You've got nothing worth hearing, and don't deserve protected speech.
Fortunately for you, in our country our liberties are enshrined in the foundation of our nation based off the enlightenment for the exact reason, that if someone like you were to come along and say "I don't like this, you can't say it", we may then proceed to say just that in your face.

And I can't get enough of it, sir.
Fortunately, in liberal democracies, one does not earn rights based on anything other than being alive. That's what natural rights are.
This.
'natural rights' are bullshit.
Ah, well, that's that then. :p

'natural rights' are bullshit.

Please tell that to the radical Enlightenment, and every liberal democracy in existence.

There is general agreement that the states of the European Union, Japan, the United States, Canada, India, Mexico, South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand are liberal democracies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_democracy#Liberal_democracies_around_the_world
Edmund Burke (1729–1797) Irish. Parliamentarian and political philosopher, best known for pragmatism, considered important to both liberal and conservative thinking.
Marquis de Condorcet (1743–1794) French. Philosopher, mathematician, and early political scientist who devised the concept of a Condorcet method.
Denis Diderot (1713–1784) French. Founder of the Encyclopédie, speculated on free will and attachment to material objects, contributed to the theory of literature.
Benjamin Franklin (1706–1790) American. Statesman, scientist, political philosopher, pragmatic deist, author. As a philosopher known for his writings on nationality, economic matters, aphorisms published in Poor Richard's Almanac and polemics in favour of American Independence. Involved with writing the United States Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of 1787.
Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) English philosopher, who wrote Leviathan, a key text in political philosophy.
Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826) American. Statesman, political philosopher, educator, deist. As a philosopher best known for the United States Declaration of Independence (1776) and his interpretation of the United States Constitution (1787) which he pursued as president. Argued for natural rights as the basis of all states, argued that violation of these rights negates the contract which bind a people to their rulers and that therefore there is an inherent "Right to Revolution."
John Locke (1632–1704) English Philosopher. Important empiricist who expanded and extended the work of Francis Bacon and Thomas Hobbes. Seminal thinker in the realm of the relationship between the state and the individual, the contractual basis of the state and the rule of law. Argued for personal liberty with respect to property.
Montesquieu (1689–1755) French political thinker. He is famous for his articulation of the theory of separation of powers, taken for granted in modern discussions of government and implemented in many constitutions all over the world.
Thomas Paine (1737–1809) English/American. Pamphleteer, Deist, and polemicist, most famous for Common Sense attacking England's domination of the colonies in America. The pamphlet was key in fomenting the American Revolution. Also wrote The Age of Reason which remains one of the most persuasive critiques of the Bible ever written, his writings (mainly Age of Reason and Rights of Man) made Americans study their religion, their behaviors, and the ruling hierarchy. His work "The Rights of Man" was written in defense of the French Revolution and is the classic example of the Enlightenment arguments in favor of classical liberalism.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778) Swiss political philosopher. Argued that the basis of morality was conscience, rather than reason, as most other philosophers argued. He wrote Du Contrat Social, in which Rousseau claims that citizens of a state must take part in creating a 'social contract' laying out the state's ground rules in order to found an ideal society in which they are free from arbitrary power. His rejection of reason in favor of the "Noble Savage" and his idealizing of ages past make him truly fit more into the romantic philosophical school, which was a reaction against the enlightenment. He largely rejected the individualism inherent in classical liberalism, arguing that the general will overrides the will of the individual.
Alexis de Tocqueville
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment#Important_figures

If you do? There's nothing 'natural' about them.

nat·u·ral (nchr-l, nchrl)
adj.
...
a. Not acquired; inherent: Love of power is natural to some people.

Also, I believe natural rights, I.E., rights that are awarded to us naturally as beings of mankind, do exist. And I'm going to trust the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights on this one:

Article 1

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

(Sounds pretty natural)

Article 2

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Also, I believe natural rights, I.E., rights that are awarded to us naturally as beings of mankind, do exist. And I'm going to trust the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights on this one:
I love the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Mostly because of this little baby right here:
Article 24
Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.
I don't think the UN Declaration is an appropriate place to refer to for natural rights, because I think it goes too far. After all, a natural right to paid holidays?

Fortunately for you, in our country our liberties are enshrined in the foundation of our nation based off the enlightenment for the exact reason, that if someone like you were to come along and say "I don't like this, you can't say it", we may then proceed to say just that in your face.


This part I'll respond to - clearly you're not as familiar with your own constitution as you seem to think - there are limitations on what you can say.

The 'natural rights' thing, I'm not going to follow up in this thread. I made an off-the-cuff response to someone else's invocation of the concept, and I'm not willing to continue what would become a hijack in THIS thread.

Any 'natural rights' content in this thread, I'll be automatically ignoring - although I'm willing to join debate on it in another thread.

This part I'll respond to - clearly you're not as familiar with your own constitution as you seem to think - there are limitations on what you can say.


I fail to see where the Constitution says that, or where the Supreme court ruled so. They have ruled that there are limitations on HOW/WHERE you can say something, but not what you can say. Care to inform this humble servant on where this came up?

This part I'll respond to - clearly you're not as familiar with your own constitution as you seem to think - there are limitations on what you can say.
Don't claim you know what I am talking about. I didn't say that there are no limiations on what I can say (fire in movie theater), I said that we have the freedom of speech for exactly the case of someone like you coming along and declaring that he doesn't like this or that or this or that, and so we shouldn't say it. We can then proceed to say it directly to you, and there is not a thing you can do about it, legally. Ah, freedom.

The 'natural rights' thing, I'm not going to follow up in this thread. I made an off-the-cuff response to someone else's invocation of the concept, and I'm not willing to continue what would become a hijack in THIS thread.

Any 'natural rights' content in this thread, I'll be automatically ignoring - although I'm willing to join debate on it in another thread.
Translates to:

"I fucked up."

This part I'll respond to - clearly you're not as familiar with your own constitution as you seem to think - there are limitations on what you can say.
Do you believe that speech some find offensive presents a clear and present danger?

I love the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Mostly because of this little baby right here:

I don't think the UN Declaration is an appropriate place to refer to for natural rights, because I think it goes too far. After all, a natural right to paid holidays?
Maybe so. But the point remains that it claims natural rights exist, and the world has largely agreed to that concept, except Grave over here. He prefers to go lone-ranger on this one.

Don't claim you know what I am talking about. I didn't say that there are no limiations on what I can say (fire in movie theater), I said that we have the freedom of speech for exactly the case of someone like you coming along and declaring that he doesn't like this or that or this or that, and so we shouldn't say it. We can then proceed to say it directly to you, and there is not a thing you can do about it, legally. Ah, freedom.


Except, clearly, this is not the case.

One only has to look at protest zones to see that 'I can say it directly to you' and 'there is not a thing you can do about it' are somewhat less than true, even in commonly observable practise.

Except, clearly, this is not the case.

One only has to look at protest zones to see that 'I can say it directly to you' and 'there is not a thing you can do about it' are somewhat less than true, even in commonly observable practise.
Point being?

On my university, for example, freaks of all shapes and sizes are allowed to come up on the grass and preach whatever political ideology they desire, even insult people, without actually physically hurting them.

Of course often times the police come. . . but just to watch and make sure that neither side disrupts the freedom of speech with aggressive action.

Waitpersons of the world unite for inclusion!

Waitpersons of the world unite for inclusion!

Silence, n00blet.:p

But the point remains that it claims natural rights exist, and the world has largely agreed to that concept

I don't agree that natural rights exist, I also dispute that the world has largely agreed to that, it is challenged, especially amongst philosophical circles. I think you're making the denial of natural rights seem more extreme than it actually is.

I don't agree that natural rights exist, I also dispute that the world has largely agreed to that, it is challenged, especially amongst philosophical circles. I think you're making the denial of natural rights seem more extreme than it actually is.

Anything is up for debate, specially amongst philosophical circles. You should know that. ;)

But that does not mean that it is not an internationally accepted norm, custom and belief, that humans have natural unalienable rights. As of now, it is.

Significance
In the preamble, governments commit themselves and their peoples to progressive measures to secure the universal and effective recognition and observance of the human rights set out in the Declaration. Eleanor Roosevelt supported the adoption the UDHR as a declaration, rather than as a treaty, because she believed that it would have the same kind of influence on global society as the United States Declaration of Independence had within the United States. In this she proved to be correct. Even though not formally legally binding, the Declaration has been adopted in or influenced most national constitutions since 1948. It also serves as the foundation for a growing number of international treaties and national laws and international, regional, national and sub-national institutions protecting and promoting human rights.


[edit] Legal effect
While not a treaty itself, the Declaration was explicitly adopted for the purpose of defining the meaning of the words "fundamental freedoms" and "human rights" appearing in the United Nations Charter, which is binding on all member states. For this reason, the Universal Declaration is a fundamental constitutive document of the United Nations. Many international lawyers, in addition, believe that the Declaration forms part of customary international law and is a powerful tool in applying diplomatic and moral pressure to governments that violate any of its articles. The 1968 United Nations International Conference on Human Rights advised that it "constitutes an obligation for the members of the international community" to all persons. The declaration has served as the foundation for two binding UN human rights covenants, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the principles of the Declaration are elaborated in international treaties such as the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the International Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the United Nations Convention Against Torture and many more. The Declaration continues to be widely cited by governments, academics, advocates and constitutional courts and individual human beings who appeal to its principles for the protection of their recognised human rights.

I'm sure you'll be pointing to the quote where I said that, eh?

I believe I did in my previous post, unless you want to tell me you are talking about something else not related to the thread topic.

I believe I did in my previous post, unless you want to tell me you are talking about something else not related to the thread topic.

Here is the post I just responded to: "And how exactly is using the terms "policeman" and "policewoman" "Mrs" and "Mr" acting like a dick?"

And here (I believe) is the post you responded to, in that quote:

"No, a LOT of people say we should. They argue against the pervasive 'evils' of 'PC' and make a hell of a noise about why they shouldn't have to change how they speak, act, etc.

Because, apparently, not acting like a dick is too much to ask."

I'm not sure where, in that post, you think you saw "...using the terms "policeman" and "policewoman" "Mrs" and "Mr"... acting like a dick"

Here is the post I just responded to: "And how exactly is using the terms "policeman" and "policewoman" "Mrs" and "Mr" acting like a dick?"

And here (I believe) is the post you responded to, in that quote:

"No, a LOT of people say we should. They argue against the pervasive 'evils' of 'PC' and make a hell of a noise about why they shouldn't have to change how they speak, act, etc.

Because, apparently, not acting like a dick is too much to ask."

I'm not sure where, in that post, you think you saw "...using the terms "policeman" and "policewoman" "Mrs" and "Mr"... acting like a dick"
You said the edict/bill/whatever you want to call it/be quiet I'm tired is asking that people not act like dicks, and the whole thing is about banning Mr. and Mrs., Police women and Police man (Although I've always used officer, seems more formal).

Here is the post I just responded to: "And how exactly is using the terms "policeman" and "policewoman" "Mrs" and "Mr" acting like a dick?"

And here (I believe) is the post you responded to, in that quote:

"No, a LOT of people say we should. They argue against the pervasive 'evils' of 'PC' and make a hell of a noise about why they shouldn't have to change how they speak, act, etc.

Because, apparently, not acting like a dick is too much to ask."

I'm not sure where, in that post, you think you saw "...using the terms "policeman" and "policewoman" "Mrs" and "Mr"... acting like a dick"

And you were referring to Hydeslands quote "I don't think anybody is saying you shouldn't. Say what you like, but it's silly to accuse anyone of using the term 'sportsman' as being a sexist (not saying you are personally)"

In which he quoted you as saying "I view a word like 'sportsman' as unnecessarily divisive. We're a reasonably intelligent species, most of whom are somewhat aware that vocabularies are evolving things. The idea that we SHOULD stick to vocabulary content that is - at best - somewhere between misleading and inaccurate - JUST for the sake of 'tradition', is nonsensical."

Or in other words talking about what was on topic, you were getting into a tizz about people going on about the EU parliament wanting their members to stop using these sort of terms and those people who said this was wrong and continued to use these terms were being a dick. Hence why I asked how exactly is using these terms being a dick?

You said the edict/bill/whatever you want to call it/be quiet I'm tired


lol.

is asking that people not act like dicks, and the whole thing is about banning Mr. and Mrs., Police women and Police man (Although I've always used officer, seems more formal).

Actually, if you check the context, I'm thinking that comment was in a clause about people being whiney about PC-ness.

Actually, if you check the context, I'm thinking that comment was in a clause about people being whiney about PC-ness.

Ah. My mistake.

...you were getting into a tizz...

This clearly has a different meaning, down your way.

This clearly has a different meaning, down your way.

I believe he means getting upset.

This clearly has a different meaning, down your way.

What does it mean somewhere between hell and high water?

I believe he means getting upset.

That's the impression I had, which means it means the same down our way. Which is confusing.

I believe I have been 'in a tizzy' one time, over content of a thread on NSG, and that was because the OP was discussing a couple being prosecuted for throwing their 2 year old child against a wall, and then beating it to death.

Real life 'upsets' me. Debate rouses no particularly strong passions in me, either way.

sports·man

noun

Definition:

1. man engaging in sports: a man who participates in sports


sports·man
Pronunciation:
\ˈspȯrts-mən\
Function:
noun
Date:
circa 1707

1 : a person who engages in sports (as hunting or fishing)
2 : a person who shows sportsmanship



Main Entry:
po·lice·man
Pronunciation:
\pə-ˈlēs-mən\
Function:
noun
Date:
1801

1 : a member of a police force
2 : one held to resemble a policeman <making the United States the policeman for the whole wide world — R. B. Long>
Main Entry:
fire·man
Pronunciation:
\-mən\
Function:
noun
Date:
14th century

1 : a person who tends or feeds fires : stoker
2 : a member of a fire department : firefighter
3 : an enlisted man in the navy who works with engineering machinery
4 : a relief pitcher in baseball

I see lots of nongender definitions for those words.

Repeating what I said because it was ignored. GnI, I'm calling you out. You must admit one of two things:

A) Words must be construed as widely as possible. Therefore, this whole attempt at removing "gender" from words that have genderless definitions is pointless and stupid.

B) Words must be viewed in the context of which they are used, referring to the specific definition that is meant by the speaker. Therefore, "bitchslap" refers to a "bitch" being a woman (as Neesika has already agreed is what she meant). Therefore, the Atlantian's joke about replacing it with humanslap was appropriate and quite funny.


Any other statement is hypocritical.

As usual, TAI's OP is a bunch of lies, distortions, and half-truths combined with ideological fervor, bigotry, and paranoia.

1. As has been pointed out, this IS A SET OF INTERNAL GUIDELINES. No words have actually been "banned" in any sense of the word.

New political correctness guide defended by EU (http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/1125866?UserKey=)
Published: 17/03/2009

A EUROPEAN Parliament guide to “gender neutral” language is a voluntary code intended for staff and not politicians, officials have said.

The booklet has been condemned as “political correctness gone mad” by Scottish Tory MEP Struan Stevenson.

The guidelines urge replacing all “gender-specific” terms such as “statesman” with gender-free alternatives, such as “political leader”.

“Mrs”, “Miss” and their equivalents in other languages should be avoided. Instead women’s full names should be used.

Now Tory MEPs have challenged the parliament to reveal the cost of a booklet which they say is “a waste of taxpayers’ money”.

A parliament spokesman – as opposed to spokeswoman – said: “The information is useful for translators and interpreters who are being asked to consider gender-neutral terms.”

In general, gender-specific descriptions are supposed to be avoided, including anything with “man” in the title, such as policeman, fireman or dustman. But, says the guide, “midwives” is acceptable – presumably as “midhusbands” are so rare. (emphasis added)

2. It is extremely telling that none of the hysterical articles about this PAMPHLET link to a copy of the offending document.

3. This story doesn't even appear to be new. Link (http://englandexpects.blogspot.com/2008/09/meanwhile-some-important-news.html)

4. There is nothing wrong with suggesting the use of more accurate and/or less offensive/oppressive language.

Maybe so. But the point remains that it claims natural rights exist, and the world has largely agreed to that concept...

But that does not mean that it is not an internationally accepted norm, custom and belief, that humans have natural unalienable rights. As of now, it is.
Do you really need to be shown why simply because something is the norm, it does not make it so?

Do you really need to be shown why simply because something is the norm, it does not make it so?
When it comes to natural rights? Nah, the Englightenment did that for me.
As usual, TAI's OP is a bunch of lies, distortions, and half-truths combined with ideological fervor, bigotry, and paranoia.

1. As has been pointed out, this IS A SET OF INTERNAL GUIDELINES. No words have actually been "banned" in any sense of the word.

New political correctness guide defended by EU (http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/1125866?UserKey=)
Published: 17/03/2009

A EUROPEAN Parliament guide to “gender neutral” language is a voluntary code intended for staff and not politicians, officials have said.

The booklet has been condemned as “political correctness gone mad” by Scottish Tory MEP Struan Stevenson.

The guidelines urge replacing all “gender-specific” terms such as “statesman” with gender-free alternatives, such as “political leader”.

“Mrs”, “Miss” and their equivalents in other languages should be avoided. Instead women’s full names should be used.

Now Tory MEPs have challenged the parliament to reveal the cost of a booklet which they say is “a waste of taxpayers’ money”.

A parliament spokesman – as opposed to spokeswoman – said: “The information is useful for translators and interpreters who are being asked to consider gender-neutral terms.”

In general, gender-specific descriptions are supposed to be avoided, including anything with “man” in the title, such as policeman, fireman or dustman. But, says the guide, “midwives” is acceptable – presumably as “midhusbands” are so rare. (emphasis added)

2. It is extremely telling that none of the hysterical articles about this PAMPHLET link to a copy of the offending document.

3. This story doesn't even appear to be new. Link (http://englandexpects.blogspot.com/2008/09/meanwhile-some-important-news.html)

4. There is nothing wrong with suggesting the use of more accurate and/or less offensive/oppressive language.
I'll also respectfully agree and say that this is not the same, problematic article that was originally published. But that article (or variations of it) were found from quite a few newsources.

Their fault for faulty reporting, not our fault for believing and discussing an issue published in a few (credible) newspapers.

Repeating what I said because it was ignored. GnI, I'm calling you out.


My my, someone has an inflated sense of their own importance. Please indulge me if I occassionally do other things, or post in other threads?


You must admit one of two things:

A) Words must be construed as widely as possible. Therefore, this whole attempt at removing "gender" from words that have genderless definitions is pointless and stupid.

B) Words must be viewed in the context of which they are used, referring to the specific definition that is meant by the speaker. Therefore, "bitchslap" refers to a "bitch" being a woman (as Neesika has already agreed is what she meant).


In the word 'bitchslap', the word is definitively gendered. It is constructed to be so - the word 'bitch' in that context, is gendered, by design. This has been covered already, by me, no less. It becomes nonsensical when you isolate 'bitch', because 'bitch' is not definitively gendered.

We have the exact opposite situation here - even where you can argue that the form doesn't necessitate gender (such as 'policeman', according to your source), isolating 'man' is specifically gender definitive.

You are asking me to concede a point that I have not only already 'conceded', but that I actually argued, myself.


Therefore, the Atlantian's joke about replacing it with humanslap was appropriate and quite funny.


For the reasons explained there, and here, that is not necessarily a logical conclusion to arrive at, from examination of the facts.

We have the exact opposite situation here - even where you can argue that the form doesn't necessitate gender (such as 'policeman', according to your source), isolating 'man' is specifically gender definitive.

Au contraire:

2 a: individual , person <a man could get killed there> b: the individual who can fulfill or who has been chosen to fulfill one's requirements <she's your man>

You are asking me to concede a point that I have not only already 'conceded', but that I actually argued, myself.

Shift goalposts much?

For the reasons explained there, and here, that is not necessarily a logical conclusion to arrive at, from examination of the facts.

This is a thread about gender equality, and "bitch" in that context is referring to someone of the female gender. Therefore, it should be changed to something gender neutral by the recommendations in this pamphlet.

Shift goalposts much?


No.

I suggest you re-read the 'bitchslap' related content, if you're confused.

Or, based on current evidence, actually read it for the first time.

When it comes to natural rights? Nah, the Englightenment did that for me.

I'll also respectfully agree and say that this is not the same, problematic article that was originally published. But that article (or variations of it) were found from quite a few newsources.

Their fault for faulty reporting, not our fault for believing and discussing an issue published in a few (credible) newspapers.

1. This isn't your first rodeo. You've previously made similiar ridiculous and hysterical threads (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=566696) based on the same type of shoddy reporting by the same source. You should know better.

2. The failure of the OP article (or any of the other articles to which you refer) to link to the alleged rules should have been a hint.

3. The hints were there in the article quoted in the OP (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/4995787/Euro-chiefs-ban-Miss-and-Mrs.html):

Guidance issued in a new 'Gender-Neutral Language' pamphlet instead orders politicians to address female members by their full name only.

Guidance =/= banning or ordering.

Pamphlet =/= law.

4. The hints were there in the original source of this tripe, The Daily Mail article (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1162384/EU-bans-use-Miss-Mrs-sportsmen-statesmen-claims-sexist.html#):

*snip*

Brussels bureaucrats have decided the words are sexist and issued new guidelines in its bid to create 'gender-neutral' language.

*snip*

Instead of using the standard titles, it is asking MEPs to address women by their names.

And the rules have not stopped there - they also ban MEPs saying sportsmen and statesmen, advising athletes and political leaders should be used instead.

*snip*

The only problem words that do not fit into the guidelines are waiter and waitress, which means MEPs are at least spared one worry when ordering a coffee.

They have reacted with incredulity to the booklet, which has been sent out by the Secretary General of the European Parliament.

Scottish Tory MEP Struan Stevenson described the guidelines as 'political correctness gone mad'.

*snip*

Guidelines, asking, booklet, and advising are not the language of legislation banning certain words or making certain language mandatory.

In short, you overreacted, failed to question, and should have known better.

Well...I chose the left/disagree...But, really I dont see why anyone should care...I only disagree with the need to make it law, retarded....

But, it is the EU anything that actually had a point would ignite infighting and only some countries would support it...

No.

I suggest you re-read the 'bitchslap' related content, if you're confused.

Or, based on current evidence, actually read it for the first time.

Except that 'man' tends to mean 'man', 'woman' tends to mean 'woman, and 'bitch' is colloquially used to refer to either, and literally only refers to dogs.

But, hey, points for trying.

In that case, you must admit one of two things:

A) In this post where you quoted the joke, you were saying that "bitch" in the context of "bitchslap" was nongender.

OR

B) You were posting irrelevantly to the content of the post you were quoting.


Also, no comment on "man" having a nongender definition?

*SNIP*But other words such as "orders" directly contradicts anything that might imply it's not an order. Which is why it is bad reporting. Which is why it was misleading. Which is why hindsight is 20/20

When it comes to natural rights? Nah, the Englightenment did that for me.
When did 'the Enlightenment said so' become a valid argument?

Which is why it was misleading. Which is why hindsight is 20/20
Which is why you should investigate your sources.

When did 'the Enlightenment said so' become a valid argument?
Well, since the Enlightenment, really.

Well, since the Enlightenment, really.
I do hope you're joking.

If not, you seem to have missed about 350 years of political philosophy. Natural rights have come under attack for a good deal of that time, including by those who are in the intellectual tradition of Locke and Hobbes; Mill, Hegel, Rawls, etc.

But other words such as "orders" directly contradicts anything that might imply it's not an order. Which is why it is bad reporting. Which is why it was misleading. Which is why hindsight is 20/20

Given that you now know that your OP is based on falsehoods and hysteria, when are you going to edit it?

That's the impression I had, which means it means the same down our way. Which is confusing.

I believe I have been 'in a tizzy' one time, over content of a thread on NSG, and that was because the OP was discussing a couple being prosecuted for throwing their 2 year old child against a wall, and then beating it to death.

Real life 'upsets' me. Debate rouses no particularly strong passions in me, either way.

So the question was you trying to be smart. But then you don't have to be upset but rather, angry or passioniate and doesn't even have to be strong.

As usual, TAI's OP is a bunch of lies, distortions, and half-truths combined with ideological fervor, bigotry, and paranoia.

Still a waste of time and money.

When did 'the Enlightenment said so' become a valid argument?


Hasn't yet. I'm thinking logical fallacy.

In that case, you must admit one of two things:

A) In this post where you quoted the joke, you were saying that "bitch" in the context of "bitchslap" was nongender.


Oh.

My.

God.

Explained twice, now, in two different places.

I think you're playing with me, now.

Oh.

My.

God.

Explained twice, now, in two different places.

I think you're playing with me, now.

Of course I am - because I've got you dead to rights.

Bitch may have a nongender definition, depending on the context.

Man may have a nongender definition, depending on the context.

You attacked the gender of "bitch" used in the context of a "bitchslap", and I have attacked the gender of "man" used in the context of "policeman". See how that works?

Of course I am - because I've got you dead to rights.

Bitch may have a nongender definition, depending on the context.

Man may have a nongender definition, depending on the context.

You attacked the gender of "bitch" used in the context of a "bitchslap", and I have attacked the gender of "man" used in the context of "policeman". See how that works?

I see that you have either not read any of the replies I've taken the time to type... or just not understood them.

Let me highlight the important part, and if you don't get it this time, I'm thinking I'll give it up as a bad job.

"In the word 'bitchslap', the word is definitively gendered. It is constructed to be so - the word 'bitch' in that context, is gendered, by design. This has been covered already, by me, no less. It becomes nonsensical when you isolate 'bitch', because 'bitch' is not definitively gendered.

We have the exact opposite situation here - even where you can argue that the form doesn't necessitate gender (such as 'policeman', according to your source), isolating 'man' is specifically gender definitive."

I see that you have either not read any of the replies I've taken the time to type... or just not understood them.

Let me highlight the important part, and if you don't get it this time, I'm thinking I'll give it up as a bad job.

Except, and let me say this slowly, man is not definitively gendered.

I've pointed that out at least three times so far from the dictionary, but I will do so again.

2 a: individual , person <a man could get killed there> b: the individual who can fulfill or who has been chosen to fulfill one's requirements <she's your man>

3 a: a feudal tenant : vassal b: an adult male servant cplural : the working force as distinguished from the employer and usually the management

4 a: one of the distinctive objects moved by each player in various board games b: one of the players on a team5: an alumnus of or student at a college or university <a Bowdoin man>

6 Christian Science : the compound idea of infinite Spirit : the spiritual image and likeness of God : the full representation of Mind

7 often capitalized : police <when I heard the siren, I knew it was the Man — American Speech>

8 often capitalized : the white establishment : white society <surprise that any black…should take on so about The Man — Peter Goldman>

9: one extremely fond of or devoted to something specified <strictly a vanilla ice cream man>

And your argument falls flat. Again.

Still a waste of time and money.

Not at all.

Pray tell why guidelines for translators and interpreters are a waste of time and money.

Pray tell why improving accuracy and removing sexism from language is a waste of time and money.

Except, and let me say this slowly, man is not definitively gendered.

Is "man" always necessarily gendered? No.

Is it usually gendered? Of course. Conspiculously absent from your quote of Webster's is the primary definition:

1 a (1): an individual human ; especially : an adult male human (2): a man belonging to a particular category (as by birth, residence, membership, or occupation) —usually used in combination <councilman> (3): husband (4): lover b: the human race : humankind c: a bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens) that is anatomically related to the great apes but distinguished especially by notable development of the brain with a resultant capacity for articulate speech and abstract reasoning, is usually considered to form a variable number of freely interbreeding races, and is the sole living representative of the hominid family ; broadly : any living or extinct hominid d (1): one possessing in high degree the qualities considered distinctive of manhood (2)obsolete : the quality or state of being manly : manliness e: fellow , chap —used as mode of familiar address f—used interjectionally to express intensity of feeling <man, what a game>

Regardless, your ranting ignores a couple of points: (1) we don't have a copy of the brochure, so we don't actually know what it says and (2) you have yet to explain what is inappropriate or inaccurate about words like "athelete," "police officer," "firefighter," etc.

Is "man" always necessarily gendered? No.

Is it usually gendered? Of course. Conspiculously absent from your quote of Webster's is the primary definition:

1 a (1): an individual human ; especially : an adult male human (2): a man belonging to a particular category (as by birth, residence, membership, or occupation) —usually used in combination <councilman> (3): husband (4): lover b: the human race : humankind c: a bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens) that is anatomically related to the great apes but distinguished especially by notable development of the brain with a resultant capacity for articulate speech and abstract reasoning, is usually considered to form a variable number of freely interbreeding races, and is the sole living representative of the hominid family ; broadly : any living or extinct hominid d (1): one possessing in high degree the qualities considered distinctive of manhood (2)obsolete : the quality or state of being manly : manliness e: fellow , chap —used as mode of familiar address f—used interjectionally to express intensity of feeling <man, what a game>

Since you clearly haven't witnessed the whole exchange, I'll sum up.

GnI has taken the position that since "bitch" is not always feminine in gender (which, by a single definition of the dictionary out of four, he's right), that the change in a joke of "bitchslap" to "humanslap" was inappropriate and not funny, as isolating "bitch" is turning a nongender term into another nongender term.

However, he has conveniently ignored that most definitions of "man" do not actually mean a male member of the species, but simply a member of the species. Therefore, the change of "policeman" to "police officer" is changing a nongendered term into another nongender term. Similarly with "fireman" into "firefighter." However, he supports doing this one, while he opposes the previous.

This is an inconsistent position, and I'm calling him on it.

Regardless, your ranting ignores a couple of points: (1) we don't have a copy of the brochure, so we don't actually know what it says and (2) you have yet to explain what is inappropriate or inaccurate about words like "athelete," "police officer," "firefighter," etc.

1) Would be nice, but no we don't. We have to go on the two articles posted (one more accurate than the other)
2) There isn't anything wrong or inaccurate about the terms, but I wouldn't recommend in any kind of official brochure that "rock" should always be replaced with "stone" because "ck" is tacky.

Not at all.

Pray tell why guidelines for translators and interpreters are a waste of time and money.

Pray tell why improving accuracy and removing sexism from language is a waste of time and money.

Pray tell how calling someone Mrs. is sexism?

If anything it would be a sign of respect.

Cat-Tribe is hell bent on destroying civilization. He can't be reasoned with.

Clearly, the solution is to ban women from working, and to ban marriage. No more need to differentiate between different sexes at the workplace, and Miss/ Mrs are no longer significant, either.

Once that's done, we can start bothering with the elimination of niggers, kikes, slanteyes etc. from the EU, to likewise eliminate these derogatory terms as well.