It's Political Correctness GONE MAD!

[Jazzratt]

I'm sure you've all heard the phrase I used for the title, probably from the ignorant right-wing bastard propping up the bar at your local. The question is how do you deal with it, how do you try to clear up a lot of the myths about Politically Correct language?

The common ones I hear are "Political Correctness is an imposition on free speech." - I generally point out that people are only PC when they want to avoid offending people, it is no more an imposition on your free speech than politness. Simply because people will be angry and offended when you start talking about how the world is being ruined by the pakis/retards/poofters doesn't mean they've taken away your right to be a tosser.

I also get to hear, at least once a week, about cases that are either clearly and famously made up ("you can't call them manhole covers anymore, they have to be personhole covers") or the result of a single misguided person ("thy don't let you say blackboard in schools anymore" If this happened at all it was in one school, possibly as the result of a single overzaealous headmaster.).

What kind of things do you encounter and how do you reply?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The statement is a red herring, since it is based on an ill-defined, nebulous concept: whatever the speaker deems to be "political correctness". Further, the statement does not indicate how "political correctness" (whatever that happens to be) is at all relevant.

Whatever is deemed to be an instance of "political correctness GONE MAD" should be judged on its own merits or lack thereof.

In short, it's a populist thought-terminating cliche (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_cliche). Ignore it and concentrate on the issue at hand.

[StalinFanboy]

I was accused of being a PC liberal by a friend because I told him to shut the fuck up when he said nigger. I explained to him that the reason that word was created and the way it's used (not to be mistaken for "nigga" - although White people still aren't allowed to use that either) is extremely fucked up, and that degrading entire groups of people isn't funny or mature.

Honestly, it's about respect. If someone is self-centered enough to begin degrading already degraded and oppressed people for the sake of humor, then they deserve a boot in the mouth.


On the other hand, I've seen "political correctness" in extremes that are racist in their own way. A friend of mine knew a lady who was at a bar. The bartender was a Black man, so when the lady wanted to order a drink called a "black Russian," she said "African American Russian." Total facepalm.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I don't know my stance. I can see the arguments for political correctness, but I write a lot of essays. It still annoys the hell out of me when I'm expected to write people instead of "men" and him/her instead of him. It incredibly destroys the flow of the essay in some cases. Two syllables in "people" is a big difference for a perfectionist.

I'm sympathetic to the people who advocate interchanging women/men through the essay, but I still hate forced limitations in my writing. They aren't explicitly forced, but you all know what I mean, I'm sure.

[MilitantAnarchist]

I hate political correctness, but i hate people who arent 'poltically correct' if that makes sense....
An example of this just happened in the pub, we was talking about the elections and what not, and BNP came up, obviously i showed my views, but some old geezer i know, in his late 50's shouted "WOGS OUT AND WHITES IN!" and it pissed me off, cos he was sat there with his LESBIAN friend who is racist and in her 40's, and he is part jewish, and they both havent had a job for well over a decade, sat there being racist as fuck... so i showed my oppinion by explaining how over 25% of NHS nurses, cares and cleaners are from immigrant families, and how over half of all the new doctors and dentists are immigrants... and said how at least they have a fucking job...
It really pissed me off, that they can hate immigrants and vote BNP, when they are both people who the BNP would discrimate against aswell as the immigrants...

Now to me, racism and homophobia is nothing to do with 'political correctness' its just wrong, to me political correctness is the do-gooders who make up stupid policies on behalf of minorities who didnt ask for it (another example is the whole christmas lights thing MIGHT be offensive, but as someone said most of that PC stuff is made up by idiots who like to cause hatred against minorities, probibly the daily mail lol)

Sorry, rant over now :p

[MilitantAnarchist]

and before anyone starts on me about insulting them because they dont work, its not because they are disabled or mentaly ill, they are just fucking lazy... trust me, i know them

[jake williams]

When people say things like this (a lot of people do it who aren't vehement sexists/racists/etc.) I find it's often a great way to talk about some of the differences between bourgeois liberal identity politics and radical leftist critiques of sexism, racism etc. Like actually. The people who say things like that are, as JR said in his original post, often profoundly misinformed.

But in the political culture that creates modern Western "political correctness" there is a lot to be objected to. As a general rule, you shouldn't say "nigger", and of course the people who use it as a serious slur are repugnant, but they're also extremely rare. In fact what bothers me is that we still live in a profoundly racist society - especially many of the whitest, most privileged, most "liberal" parts that are totally terrified by potentially offensive terms, but don't give a god damn about institutional racism. In fact, challenging those institutions challenges their power, and so the boundaries of their "anti-racism" are creating silly rules about what language is considered offensive and what isn't. To be totally honest, while a lot of the bickering about "political correctness" is ugly and reactionary, I think much of it, even from not very politically sophisticated people, is still based on legitimate and sensible discomfort with the hypocrisy and inefficacy of liberal politics. Like I said, this is often a great conversation started, and I find people are often pretty open to what I'm saying when I express similar annoyance with a lot of "PC" trends (even while making it clear that a lot of them are legitimate).

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I hate political correctness, but i hate people who arent 'poltically correct' if that makes sense....
An example of this just happened in the pub, we was talking about the elections and what not, and BNP came up, obviously i showed my views, but some old geezer i know, in his late 50's shouted "WOGS OUT AND WHITES IN!" and it pissed me off, cos he was sat there with his LESBIAN friend who is racist and in her 40's, and he is part jewish, and they both havent had a job for well over a decade, sat there being racist as fuck... so i showed my oppinion by explaining how over 25% of NHS nurses, cares and cleaners are from immigrant families, and how over half of all the new doctors and dentists are immigrants... and said how at least they have a fucking job...
It really pissed me off, that they can hate immigrants and vote BNP, when they are both people who the BNP would discrimate against aswell as the immigrants...

Now to me, racism and homophobia is nothing to do with 'political correctness' its just wrong, to me political correctness is the do-gooders who make up stupid policies on behalf of minorities who didnt ask for it (another example is the whole christmas lights thing MIGHT be offensive, but as someone said most of that PC stuff is made up by idiots who like to cause hatred against minorities, probibly the daily mail lol)

Sorry, rant over now :p

My political science professors informed me of something interesting recently. Apparently the idea that immigrants "take jobs" is actually entirely unfounded. While individual people may lose their jobs, thus affirming the viewpoints of racists, people improve overall. Most people already in society end up with better jobs or higher wages. There is data to support this. I haven't seen it, but I don't suspect he is feeding me false information.

I found it particularly interesting given that even as a leftist, I honestly thought immigrants were taking at least "a few" jobs.

[political_animal]

As someone that is relentlessly politically correct, I find that there is an enormous lack of understanding of what, exactly, the POINT of it is.

To make it into an easily understood reference we could turn to the old adage...

"sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me".

The best that can be said about that phrase, is "what a load of bollocks!" Of course words can hurt and they do regularly, sometimes because they are meant to hurt, sometimes by accident, but the important thing to recognise is not just that words are an important part of every day life, but that they are integral to what we are as humans. Without communication, how far down the evolutionary line would we have got?

The whole point about PC, is to try and communicate in a way that doesn't hurt or demean anyone. This may sound like a hard thing to do, but it is something that I live by. Then again, it helps being on the left of politics and thus believing in equality. It doesn't mean that my language is barren, (that I am unable to annoy, rile, show passion or commitment) merely that I understand the power of language and try my best to avoid putting people down. Of course, this is individual choice, how does it affect institutions.

There have been a number of examples shown of PC supposedly 'going mad', in regards to council directives. Part of the reason for these are based on the values of equality and also about communication, I mean, is there anyone that really has cause for complaint that councils make leaflets available in numerous languages other than English?

In terms of revising history, the best example I can give is the 'Just So' stories by Rudyard Kipling. Now, it is a book many of us will have heard of, and it is a book/author that is regarded very higly by numerous people and yet - despite it being a childrens story book - one of the characters is called 'nigger'. In this day and age, it is quite simply not acceptable to be using such language. Of course, years ago when things were different, it may have been accepted as every day language. The important part of PC is to try and make things better now and in the future. If there are people out there that think it wrong that such books (and others - Enid Blyton for example) should be banned, then fair enough (and I am not in favour of bans myself) but I simply would not want to read such stories to my daughter and would be quite rightly shocked if such words were accepted in a kids story book in the modern day. This is what causes a problem for many rejectee's of PC. They don't seem to understand the concept that as things move on and that we evolve, things change and so does language and the way in which we use it.

Another part of the PC controversy, is that it is often used as a catch-all phrase for things that have absolutely nothing to do with PC. To quote the comedian Stewart Lee...

"There is a generation of people who have mistaken political correctness for health and safety legislation"

Many a true word is said in jest and how correct he is! People banned from working up ladders without precautions...political correctness gone mad! Bananas being banned for being 'too bendy'...political correctness gone mad! For opponents of PC, it is easy to co-opt such things into their argument because it goes that H+S legislation is against 'common sense' and so is PC. But even a rudimentary argument about either case, would be able to point out that they are for the benefit of people, either in terms of saving them from slipping and injuring themselves (especially in the era of 'where there's blame there's a claim') or of trying to stop people demeaning others.

Stewart Lee (a great comedian, I recommend you check him out on YouTube) also pointed out that PC has created many advances in humanity. One being that in the 1964 Smethwick election, the Tories used the slogan...

"If you want a nigger for a neighbour, vote Liberal or Labour"

If anyone tried to use such a slogan now, apart from being condemned, they would be rightly charged under race relations legislation. This shows how we have come a long way and that the way in which we use language is a very fluid thing. It changes over time and things that were acceptable years ago (even in the recent past) are not acceptable now and that whilst there may be things that some consider as PC gone mad now, may well be things that we simply accept in the future.

Dooga, mentioned about the limitations in writing caused by the imposition of the interspersed him/her throughout an essay. The solution to this I find, is something that I do myself in my own writing. I have always been annoyed that reading certain texts will always present the usage of the word 'he' or 'him', when discussing a number of people and similarly, the imposition of 'he/she', 'him/her', is equally annoying. As I mentioned above, words and language are fluid and for many years, I have used the words 'them/they' instead. Now, it may be grammatically incorrect to use this term, but over time, as language changes, it may become the most acceptable way to state it, but unless and until anyone other than myself starts to use it, it will not be accepted. Just a thought.

An example of a lack of understanding of PC, what it is for and what it means, is from when I had a job in a huge multi-national supermarket chain. They tried to be PC and went to great pains to ensure that the employees understood their vision and preached and practiced equality. Unfortunately, they went too far. In one exercise, we were shown a video of a woman in a wheelchair who wanted an item off the top shelf but couldn't reach. An employee came along and said she would get it for the customer as 'you are less fortunate'. This was shown as an example of being un-PC. Quite ridiculous. It isn't demeaning to a disabled customer to point out that they are 'less fortunate'. This is patently obvious. If she was fully able-bodied, she would have been able to get the item herself. The very fact that she couldn't get the item, because she couldn't get out of her wheelchair and reach the top shelf, is quite obviously an example of being less fortunate than the vast majority of the public who were able to reach the item without help. The issue here is not one of political correctness, it is one of utter stupidity that the employee should even make an issue about the customer in the wheelchair.

As a final thought, I would ask of all those people that say 'PC has gone mad', does that mean that they were happy with PC before it 'went mad', or is it just that they don't like equality?

Political correctness may be completely misunderstood and abused by many people and the media, but it is a very positive thing when used in the correct situations and when it is understood what it means, and the spread of PC, shows the advancement of our society and human evolution. If it was merely called 'respect', maybe everyone would understand it better.

[ZeroNowhere]

The best that can be said about that phrase, is "what a load of bollocks!"Perhaps, except that it is only meant to apply to the speaker, rather than to the entire human population.


If anyone tried to use such a slogan now, apart from being condemned, they would be rightly charged under race relations legislation.
Whereas if the world were a better place, they would be condemned for not being harsh enough on the Liberals and Labour.


As a final thought, I would ask of all those people that say 'PC has gone mad', does that mean that they were happy with PC before it 'went mad', or is it just that they don't like equality?
In all likelihood, neither. They see PC as a bad thing, and see 'PC gone mad' as being even worse. I generally sympathize with them, though that's most probably due to personal experience.

[rednordman]

I could and would love to give you all a genuinely sensible answer to this, but instead of wasting my energy on something that seems to have infected the UK like a contagous virus, i will simply say that people are often (especially in the west) stupid.

If there is something that they simply take a disliking to, rather than looking at it from different angles, they simply moan about 'political correctness gone mad'.

There all yellow inside and have no bottle whats so ever. And simply cannot accept that things arnt always going to go their way. Its like people who make geniuine assumptions such as the blackboard and manhole one mentioned above. They may have a point to begin with, but a few weeks later, i have heard the very same people going as far as to say that calling an african man a ni**er is not racist...but to oppose that kind of language is "political correction gone mad":rolleyes:. So for a man/woman of african origin cannot be offended by that because 'people should have the freedom of speach to say what they like etc'.

Its all a load of total rubbish and i cannot do anything about it, because when i do, people look at me like im a huge traitor and all that stuff. I think this sort of phenomena is at its worst in westernised countries such as UK, USA and Australia. Its like instead of accepting a huge failure within the system of capitalism, they just say that its political correction.

The ironic thing is however, that they often accuse this political correction as being a violation of free speech, and oppressive, yet THEY are the ones who are being oppressive as I personally cannot oppose their blatant racism, xenophobia and igourance, because they will lablast me as being 'anti-patriotic' and a liberal leftist (what-ever thats supposed to mean nowadays anyway?)..Or even worse..a do-gooder:rolleyes:!

So though I despise their hatred and igourance, i have to 'tolerate' it, so im not a pariah.

Sad times comrades...

[K.Bullstreet]

I hate the term 'PC', and do believe 'political correctness' is a terrible thing, and has actually gone mad! I will explain later. :cool:

[Killfacer]

I just point out most of it's bullshit peddled by newspapers. Like when a council, according to the dail mail, "banned christmas".

I read the article and it was (obviously) complete bullshit. I can't remember the exact details of what the council actually did so i usually make something up.

[political_animal]

I just point out most of it's bullshit peddled by newspapers. Like when a council, according to the dail mail, "banned christmas".

I read the article and it was (obviously) complete bullshit. I can't remember the exact details of what the council actually did so i usually make something up.

Just to help out (and because I'm bored and in need of something to do, after a bit of a search...

A Daily Mail article about banning Christmas...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-421190/Straw-hits-Christmas-ban.html

A riposte from Spiked showing how it's all fabricated nonsense...

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/4190/

And an article from Liberal Conspiracy counterbalancing the nonsense (containing a link to the 'local council bans Christmas' article)...

http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/2008/11/25/council-bans-christmas/

[teenagebricks]

Political correctness was created by those who wish to tear it down, not those who would enforce it. Just another excuse to complain about society, maybe if enough people hear what you've got to say they'll vote for a fascist. "It's political correctness gone mad. What is the world coming to when you can't even throw a rock at the Paki next door?!"

[scarletghoul]

Apparently America has a black president. Its political correctness gone mad!

[Jazzratt]

Political correctness was created by those who wish to tear it down, not those who would enforce it.

Actually the term originates with students on university campuses in America in the 1960s. It was created by the "left" (such as it was) created the term but we have allowed the right to define it.


Just another excuse to complain about society, maybe if enough people hear what you've got to say they'll vote for a fascist. "It's political correctness gone mad. What is the world coming to when you can't even throw a rock at the Paki next door?!"

Well, quite.

[rednordman]

Political correctness was created by those who wish to tear it down, not those who would enforce it. Just another excuse to complain about society, maybe if enough people hear what you've got to say they'll vote for a fascist. "It's political correctness gone mad. What is the world coming to when you can't even throw a rock at the Paki next door?!"Could not have put it better myself, why o why do people fall for all this scapgoating and not just see it for what it is.

[rednordman]

Apparently America has a black president. Its political correctness gone mad!Yes and I have to wear a seatbelt and am not allowed to go over 150mph in a 30 zone and be pissed while driving a car....Its political correctness GONE MAD!!!:D

[Agrippa]

"Political correctness" is a vital tool of Orwellian capitalist control.

I can be renamed from a "nigger" to an "African-American" or from a "cripple" to a "differently-abled person' all I want but it still doesn't change the material conditions.

Notice how all the "politically correct" terminology is as vile or often even viler than the terminology it replaces? For example, "negro" just means "black" and "nigger" originated as a slang derivation of "negro". Whereas "African-American" implies that people of African descent living in the US should be loyal subjects of the American political system. Same goes for "Indian" and "Native American".

By softening the language that is acceptable among public discourse, our society cripples not only the communication of, say, racist, sexist, or homophobic ideas, but also the communication of ideas critical of racism, sexism, and homophobia.

As it has been said before, our society is still, for example, profoundly racist. But now the racism is a social taboo, shoved behind closed doors, is not allowed to be discussed or addressed. How this is an improvement, or how this has anything to do with communist interests, is beyond me

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Notice how all the "politically correct" terminology is as vile or often even viler than the terminology it replaces? For example, "negro" just means "black" and "nigger" originated as a slang derivation of "negro". Whereas "African-American" implies that people of African descent living in the US should be loyal subjects of the American political system. Same goes for "Indian" and "Native American".

Really? I always thought "Native American" was more accurate than "Indian" since those people are natives of the continent of America. The "Indian" label is based off colonial ignorance.

[Black Dagger]

It still annoys the hell out of me when I'm expected to write people instead of "men" and him/her instead of him. It incredibly destroys the flow of the essay in some cases. Two syllables in "people" is a big difference for a perfectionist.


Just use the feminine form then, 'her' instead of 'him' etc. :thumbup1:

[Sand Castle]

OK, so I think this is a little bit off-topic from the current discussion, but I think you'll find this interesting or something.

I was on this forum, yes this very forum here, and I was reading a post. I forgot who it was from. Rollo I think. Anyway, the poster was saying that they knew some parents. These parents overdid the anti-sexist relationship thing. Instead of having their child address them as mother and father, or mom and dad, they made their child call them "Parent 1" and "Parent A". Everyone said that was crazy.

I have to agree, it is crazy. Mother and father, to the best of my knowledge, are more scientific than sexist terms. In my mind, and I'm assuming everyone else's minds, mother and father are words associated with biology in a way. With two, obviously heterosexual or bisexual adults, who have a number of children.

For homosexual couples, the naming might be a little different. Or they could both be dad or mom. I don't think about this stuff that often, so I don't know. Either way, now I'm just rambling.

Political correctness gone mad, or poor Mr. sultan's mistake?

[Jazzratt]

"Political correctness" is a vital tool of Orwellian capitalist control.

Don't be an idiot. When he created newspeak as a dystopian device I doubt very much that Orwell meant that you should be as much of a twat as possible toward others simply in the name of free speach. Political correctness, generally, is a voluntary thing based entirely on attempts not to cause offense. Newspeak was a (fictional) language imposed on people based on the elimination of certain concepts. If you can't tell the difference then I am at a complete loss to see how you function in society.

What's next? Saying please & thank you is a "a vital tool of Orwellian capitalist control"?


I can be renamed from a "nigger" to an "African-American" or from a "cripple" to a "differently-abled person' all I want but it still doesn't change the material conditions.

No shit. That doesn't mean you should go around calling everyone niggers, pakis, chinks, wops, cripples, fags, dykes, trannies and so on and so forth. Do you think anyone will truly think you're a political ally if the first thing you tell them is that you expect the right to throw discriminatory epithets at them?


Notice how all the "politically correct" terminology is as vile or often even viler than the terminology it replaces?

Only in your head.


For example, "negro" just means "black" and "nigger" originated as a slang derivation of "negro". Whereas "African-American" implies that people of African descent living in the US should be loyal subjects of the American political system.

"African American" is a term I have only heard used by Americans, I'm afraid that the world is somewhat larger than the United States. Around here most black people prefer to be identified as black if it becomes necessary at all. While "african-american" is not at all accurate it's a fucksight less insluting and, as you would have it, vile than "nigger". Ask just about anyone who has been outside for, say, five minutes.


Same goes for "Indian" and "Native American".

NoXion has this covered but it's probably worth re-iterating since you appear to be as thick as pigshit. "Indian" was the ignorant term white colonialists used when they arrived in america "native American" is a term that recognises that the people are in fact native to the region or were, at the very least, there first.


By softening the language that is acceptable among public discourse, our society cripples not only the communication of, say, racist, sexist, or homophobic ideas, but also the communication of ideas critical of racism, sexism, and homophobia.

I've never had any trouble discussing racism, sexism, and homophobia whilst steering clear of sounding like an ignorant dick. The main point of political correctness is, in fact, making it easier to recognise a statement that is prejuidiced. It is because of political correctness, for example, that the conservative party slogan quoted earlier in this thread ("If you want a nigger for a neighbour vote Liberal or Labour") jars with a modern audience.


As it has been said before, our society is still, for example, profoundly racist.

It's got a long way to go, but it has come far as well.


But now the racism is a social taboo, shoved behind closed doors, is not allowed to be discussed or addressed.

Calling somone, say, a paki is not discussing or adressing racism. If you think it isn't still discussed and adressed then you've been living under a fucking rock.


How this is an improvement, or how this has anything to do with communist interests, is beyond me

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1079/577339689_f1942fb410.jpg?v=1237776647

This shocks you because you have internalised PC ideas.

[Luís Henrique]

Political Correctness "gone mad", or Political Correctness gone totally astray from class struggle?

Luís Henrique

[Dimentio]

I'm sure you've all heard the phrase I used for the title, probably from the ignorant right-wing bastard propping up the bar at your local. The question is how do you deal with it, how do you try to clear up a lot of the myths about Politically Correct language?

The common ones I hear are "Political Correctness is an imposition on free speech." - I generally point out that people are only PC when they want to avoid offending people, it is no more an imposition on your free speech than politness. Simply because people will be angry and offended when you start talking about how the world is being ruined by the pakis/retards/poofters doesn't mean they've taken away your right to be a tosser.

I also get to hear, at least once a week, about cases that are either clearly and famously made up ("you can't call them manhole covers anymore, they have to be personhole covers") or the result of a single misguided person ("thy don't let you say blackboard in schools anymore" If this happened at all it was in one school, possibly as the result of a single overzaealous headmaster.).

What kind of things do you encounter and how do you reply?

I think its generally a weak defense made by people for whom discrimination do not matter. They cannot identify with the feelings of the persons hurt by their discriminating statements, so they continue discriminating because they feel that using non-discriminating words would let those they are debating against "win".

[Black Dagger]

Political Correctness "gone mad", or Political Correctness gone totally astray from class struggle?

Luís Henrique

Huh? I can't even tell who you are criticising here... :p

[Agrippa]

Don't be an idiot. When he created newspeak as a dystopian device I doubt very much that Orwell meant that you should be as much of a twat as possible toward others simply in the name of free speach.

I don't think I ever advocating being a "twat" towards anyone.


Political correctness, generally, is a voluntary thingAny more so than any other mass-media induced fad is a "voluntary thing". 13-year-old girls are "voluntarily" obsessing over the television series Twilight, but it's still a product of capitalism.


based entirely on attempts not to cause offense.That concept is absurd. There are no blanket rules to follow for causing or not causing offense. That will only reinforce bullshit stereotypes and encourage people to treat "oppressed minorities" as an abstract ideal rather as individuals. Many proponents of "political correctness" seem to treat "oppressed minority" groups such as blacks as stupid, as being incapable of grasping or comprehending the white man's sublte sense of wit and sarcasm, as being quick to irrational anger, and so on.


No shit. That doesn't mean you should go around calling everyone niggers, pakis, chinks, wops, cripples, fags, dykes, trannies and so on and so forth.If those are the terms the individuals in question prefer to be identified as. I know plenty of people who would rather be "fags", "dykes", "trannies", "chinks", etc. than "GLBT people", "Asian-Americans", etc.


Do you think anyone will truly think you're a political ally if the first thing you tell them is that you expect the right to throw discriminatory epithets at them?No one has a right to commit acts of verbal assault or verbal harassment but it's not nessicarily the words they use but the intent to assault and harass that makes the behavior ethically criminal.


"African American" is a term I have only heard used by Americans, I'm afraid that the world is somewhat larger than the United States.Well, other countries have their own PC jargon. I was using an American example since that's what I am most familiar with. (It's also worth pointing out that there are more black people in America, so to imply that I'm somehow more ignorant of the subject for being American is asinine)


Around here most black people prefer to be identified as black if it becomes necessary at all. While "african-american" is not at all accurate it's a fucksight less insluting and, as you would have it, vile than "nigger". Ask just about anyone who has been outside for, say, five minutes.I know plenty of black people who would rather be "niggers" than "African-Americans" because the worst thing they can think of is being named after their colonists and oppressors.


NoXion has this covered but it's probably worth re-iterating since you appear to be as thick as pigshit. "Indian" was the ignorant term white colonialists used when they arrived in america "native American" is a term that recognises that the people are in fact native to the region or were, at the very least, there first."Indian" is an ignorant colonist term, whereas "Native American" is not? I hate to break it to you but no one was calling themselves an "American" on that continent, "Native" or otherwise, before Columbus showed up. The word "American" comes from one Amerigo Vespucci, a cohort of Columbus who helped massacre the people who are now named after him. How is this less insulting and degrading than "Indian" (the term most working-class Indian people still identify most strongly with, in comparison to "Native American") which either comes from Columbus' navigational incompentence (believing he was in India) or from his belief that the naked savages were closer to God, ("In Dios" ) depending on which etymology you believe. Either way, Indians prefer to be identified by their specific ethnic group, but if broad labels are needed, many Indians prefer "Indian" to "Native American" because "Native American" was a term imposed on them by capitalist government bureaucrats.

Again, I am probably more ignorant of the issue than you because I am American and therefore actually live next door to these people. Excuse my piggish Yankee ways.


I've never had any trouble discussing racism, sexism, and homophobia whilst steering clear of sounding like an ignorant dick.This isn't what I'm talking about. Suppose an anti-racist is telling an anecdote regarding racial oppression, and is explaining how racists verbally harassed someone by calling them a "nigger". On broadcast television, the word "nigger" would be verboten regardless of context, in this context, any ban on the word would actually serve to soften to poetic and therefore emotional impact of the anti-racist.


The main point of political correctness is, in fact, making it easier to recognise a statement that is prejuidiced.How can words be "prejudiced"?


It is because of political correctness, for example, that the conservative party slogan quoted earlier in this thread ("If you want a nigger for a neighbour vote Liberal or Labour") jars with a modern audience. But that doesn't mean the audience is more progressive or has better values. You could just as easily argue that the fact that there are more breasts on basic cable television is an example of political progress.


It's got a long way to go, but it has come far as well. See, this is what I'm talking about. The embracement of political correctness seems to go hand and hand with buying the capitalist myth that racial oppression and colonialism are naturally being progressively aleviated as time goes and that our society is less racially oppressive than it used to be. This is, in my opinion, a totally uncritical interpretation of the changes our society has gone through, most of which have been implimented to make capitalist oppression more stable and vital.


Calling somone, say, a paki is not discussing or adressing racism. If you think it isn't still discussed and adressed then you've been living under a fucking rock.And if someone has bullshit racist ideas about Pakistani culture, but they know not to use the word "Paki" out of politeness and common courtesy, how is that better? To me it's exactly the same. If anything it's slightly worse, because at least if the racist feels free to use the word "Paki" they will emarass and expose themselves immediately as an idiot and thus can begiin any potential oppertunities for education. Under the system of "political correctness" the person would have these ideas but feel they are "wrong" and should not be discussed...therefore their resentment towards "Pakis" might grow as their feelings are bottled up.




http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1079/577339689_f1942fb410.jpg?v=1237776647

This shocks you because you have internalised PC ideas.That image isn't particularly shocking to me, and any reasonable objection to it that I have is not caused by "internalised PC ideas". You have to be "PC" to be rational enough not to believe that blacks and Irish are on the same level as dogs? I call B.S.

[political_animal]

I'm sorry Agrippa, but that is patent nonsense you spout.


I Any more so than any other mass-media induced fad is a "voluntary thing". 13-year-old girls are "voluntarily" obsessing over the television series Twilight, but it's still a product of capitalism.

What on earth are you arguing here?! You can't compare '13 year old girls' being sucked into the culture that surrounds them, so as not to feel belittled, with someone choosing not to use offensive and demeaning words. Determinism is one thing but to argue that we don't have the ability to decide whether to be offensive ot not is utter nonsense.


That concept is absurd. There are no blanket rules to follow for causing or not causing offense. That will only reinforce bullshit stereotypes and encourage people to treat "oppressed minorities" as an abstract ideal rather as individuals.

Of course there aren't blanket rules but it should be quite obvious what words cause offense at present and as we as people become more aware of other people and cultures, there will be more awareness of other terms that are offensive. To have knowledge of certain words and to choose not to use them so as to not cause offense, isn't reinforcing bullshit stereotypes, it is a common basic trait called respect.


Many proponents of "political correctness" seem to treat "oppressed minority" groups such as blacks as stupid, as being incapable of grasping or comprehending the white man's sublte sense of wit and sarcasm, as being quick to irrational anger, and so on.

Which proponents are these exactly? Who is saying that oppressed minority groups are stupid. It is a fallacious argument to talk about comedy not being allowed to use certain words. I don't think fascists, homophobes, racists or whatever are being comedic when they use such terms.



If those are the terms the individuals in question prefer to be identified as. I know plenty of people who would rather be "fags", "dykes", "trannies", "chinks", etc. than "GLBT people", "Asian-Americans", etc.

Yes, well that's fine but I think there is a huge amount of difference between somebody using language to describe themselves and others using the language to demean and belittle others. It is also a nonsense to say that 'dyke' is acceptable but 'GLBT people' is PC nonsense because no-one would use that term to describe an individual, it is merely a term of reference as regards a grouping. There isn't a PC policy on using GLBT!



No one has a right to commit acts of verbal assault or verbal harassment but it's not nessicarily the words they use but the intent to assault and harass that makes the behavior ethically criminal.

Very true. But are you arguing that the usage of offensive terms in certain circumstances are fine as long as they aren't being used in an harassing way? This would clearly be wrong.


I know plenty of black people who would rather be "niggers" than "African-Americans" because the worst thing they can think of is being named after their colonists and oppressors.

That is fine but there will be plenty of people who don't want to be called that.


This isn't what I'm talking about. Suppose an anti-racist is telling an anecdote regarding racial oppression, and is explaining how racists verbally harassed someone by calling them a "nigger". On broadcast television, the word "nigger" would be verboten regardless of context, in this context, any ban on the word would actually serve to soften to poetic and therefore emotional impact of the anti-racist.

Well, I don't know about TV in the US but over here in the UK, after 9pm it wouldn't be censored at all. Besides, there wouldn't be a 'ban' on certain words, the whole point is that altering language CAN alter behaviour.


How can words be "prejudiced"?.

Words aren't prejudiced, the people that use them in an offensive way are.


But that doesn't mean the audience is more progressive or has better values. You could just as easily argue that the fact that there are more breasts on basic cable television is an example of political progress.

This is where you are wrong. The fact is, there HAS been progression. Even among people who aren't necessarily pre-disposed to political correctness, the position has moved to at least the fact that they KNOW they are being offensive when they use certain terms. That is half the battle. The laziness in people in just accepting stereotypes and offensive words as part of every day language is something that has been challenged and legislated against. You would find it hard to find any people that didn't know certain terms were offensive. Whether they chose to ignore any offense being caused is another matter entirely and is the next stage in the battle.


See, this is what I'm talking about. The embracement of political correctness seems to go hand and hand with buying the capitalist myth that racial oppression and colonialism are naturally being progressively aleviated as time goes and that our society is less racially oppressive than it used to be. This is, in my opinion, a totally uncritical interpretation of the changes our society has gone through, most of which have been implimented to make capitalist oppression more stable and vital.

This may be RevLeft, but to try and argue that PC was created as a capitalist tool to sneak oppression under the radar is deserving of a tin hat.



And if someone has bullshit racist ideas about Pakistani culture, but they know not to use the word "Paki" out of politeness and common courtesy, how is that better? To me it's exactly the same. If anything it's slightly worse, because at least if the racist feels free to use the word "Paki" they will emarass and expose themselves immediately as an idiot and thus can begiin any potential oppertunities for education. Under the system of "political correctness" the person would have these ideas but feel they are "wrong" and should not be discussed...therefore their resentment towards "Pakis" might grow as their feelings are bottled up.

How is common courtesy better?! Because it is! It is ridiculous to argue that it is a better world if all the racists just come right out and say what ever racial epithet is on their mind. They may embarass and expose themselves but it doesn't mean the person on the receiving end is jumping up and down, singing and dancing saying 'whoopee, at least I know you are a racist...as for my friends, they've never been racist to me, so I don't know, maybe they're being secret racists'!!! What utter bollocks!

The more that racists,homophobes or whatever are forced to reduce the bile they spew, the better the world is. It may not tackle the intrinsic reasons of why they are racist, but at least they won't cause any mental anguish to others in the meantime if they are forced to stop using offensive words.

How would their resentment grow if they felt unable to use racist language? They already have resentment, that's why they are racist. The resentment isn't going to be deepened by someone telling them to stop being a racist twat.


That image isn't particularly shocking to me, and any reasonable objection to it that I have is not caused by "internalised PC ideas". You have to be "PC" to be rational enough not to believe that blacks and Irish are on the same level as dogs? I call B.S.

The shocking thing about the image isn't about saying blacks and Irish are on the same level as dogs. The shocking thing is that just 40 years ago, the racism so endemic in British society was not only widespread but perfectly legal. It took action, campaigning and ultimately legislation to get such things stopped. Maybe you have your own particular circumstances in the US (and that's why I haven't quoted or responded those bits about the US as I don't have enough knowledge to comment) but here in the UK, there is so much emotional and social baggage that comes with the old Empire and then commonwealth as it became, and the Windrush generation that brought many immigrants from the West Indies to settle in the UK, to take up the huge amount of jobs that were created to rebuild Britain after the end of WWII, that such images still have a long-lasting and deep impact.

The whole point about political correctness is not about 'banning' words, or sweeping oppressive language under the carpet of capitalism, it is a practical step that can be taken to alleviate the conditions of oppression caused by such offensive terms being used in an every day setting, so that anyone that is from a certain group that could be targetted for oppression through language, can have some form of peace whilst the ongoing struggle for complete equality continues. To try to argue that PC is a capitalist constuct is nonsense and to try to argue that it is better if racists are out in the open and to spout whatever they like to anyone thay like without being challenged, is so crazy, I can't even contemplate where you are going with that thought.

If a racist feels resentment at not being allowed to speak freely, well tough fucking shit, don't be a racist then!

It really can't be argued that society is worse now because of PC. Along with the acknowledgement of the unacceptability of certain terms being used over the last couple of decades, has been the growth of legislation to outlaw discrimination in the work place, employment rights, access, openness and more recently, offences such as 'incitement to cause racial hatred' and the impositioning of longer sentences for racially aggravated crimes. It can also be seen that there have been greater moves on equality for gays and lesbians, whether it be the recognition of civil partnerships, or equal rights in terms of status recognition. Without the advancement of political correctness, it really is hard to believe that a lot of these advancements would have been possible. By foisting the offense certain words can cause on to the political arena, it has forced everyone to take stock of not only action, but language as well. There IS still a long way to go, but great strides have been made. To deny this, or to try and argue that it has been in the interests of capitalism to 'allow' this to happen, is plain wrong and misses the point.

[Agrippa]

What on earth are you arguing here?! You can't compare '13 year old girls' being sucked into the culture that surrounds them, so as not to feel belittled, with someone choosing not to use offensive and demeaning words.

You're ignoring the obvious fact that what terms are considered "belittling", "offensive", "demeaning", etc. is as influenced by capitalist mass-media as any other aspect of society. Take, for example, in the US, the use of the terms "Negro" and "Black". "Negro" was the much more commonly used, and socially acceptable term, until the black petit-bourgeoisie, the self-proclaimed leaders of the black community, in short, the neo-colonial rulership, got together and decided that "Black" was more acceptable. And the mass-media followed the trend, and the masses followed the mass-media. I think it's fairly obvious that the mass-media's willingness to adopt this new language policy was a desire to expediantly cast a way a term so intimately and subconsciously rooted in associations with obvious violent contradictions in US society, violent contradictions that if exposed would lead to further political disillusionment among many.

If I wanted to be a real smart-ass, I could claim that since "Negro" is merely the Spanish word for "Black", that assuming "Black" is less offensive than "Negro" is itself offensive to Spanish-speaking people. See how ridiculous PC language-patrolling can get?


Of course there aren't blanket rules but it should be quite obvious what words cause offense at present and as we as people become more aware of other people and cultures, there will be more awareness of other terms that are offensive

But a whole "people" or "culture" can not simultaneously find any single word offensive or empowering. There is always the individual. What happens when you meet someone who belongs to a group you are trying to "be aware of", and, in "being aware of them", you use a term you believe is politically correct, that turns out to offend the person. What if the person is offended by your over-cautiousness, your unwillingness to treat them as any other normal person rather than a member of a special group that needs to be babied.


Which proponents are these exactly? Who is saying that oppressed minority groups are stupid.

I'm making generalizations so I can only cite anecdotal evidence. Once I had an encounter with a very politically correct (white) person who suggested that white people should never be allowed to use the word "nigger", even in cases of obvious anti-racist satire. This, in my mind, is treating black people as if they are stupid, because it implies they wouldn't be clever enough to see obvious satire for what it is.


It is a fallacious argument to talk about comedy not being allowed to use certain words.

So far you are the first person to mention "comedy". I only spoke of the possible use of "politically incorrect" words in sincere, ernest anti-racist accounts. I know plenty of middle-class, heterosexual, white male assholes who like to piss people off by being obnoxious and then claiming that their verbal harassment was "ironic". So I'm well aware that "comedy" is used as an excuse to justify bigoted idiocy. But is it really "fallacious" to propose that not all uses of "derrogitory" words are themselves derrogitory?


Yes, well that's fine but I think there is a huge amount of difference between somebody using language to describe themselves and others using the language to demean and belittle others.

Obviously. How does that contradict rather than affirm my point, that words in-of-themselves aren't nessicarily derrogitory and it all depends on the individual context?

Also, there are lots of people who belonged to oppressed sexual or ethnic groups that have no issue with people who don't belong to those groups using such terms, as long as the terms are used in an endearing, colloquial context rather than in an abusive, demeaning context. Many people think that such strategies will ultimately render the words less powerful for when people actually use them violently.


It is also a nonsense to say that 'dyke' is acceptable but 'GLBT people' is PC nonsense because no-one would use that term to describe an individual, it is merely a term of reference as regards a grouping.[/qute]

Most of my PC friends use the term "LGBT people".

[quote]There isn't a PC policy on using GLBT!

A policy amongst PC people. I was speaking hyperbolically, obviously.


Very true. But are you arguing that the usage of offensive terms in certain circumstances are fine as long as they aren't being used in an harassing way? This would clearly be wrong.

So if an 80 year old white woman who is not racist uses the term "colored" out of force of habit, because that was the "politically correct" term in her day, that is as "wrong" as if a person who is racist uses the term to intentionally offend?


That is fine but there will be plenty of people who don't want to be called that.

Did I ever say otherwise?


Well, I don't know about TV in the US but over here in the UK, after 9pm it wouldn't be censored at all.

The US is a much more politically correct society than the UK. Here in the US, the raunchiest television show, South Park, has only ever used the term "nigger" in one episode, and the term is never used within the context of news or serious journalistic reporting.


the whole point is that altering language CAN alter behaviour.

I think the truth of that statement is exaggerated so cosmopolitan-minded people can aleviate their guilt by cogradulation themselves for incredibly minor actions such as altering their language.


Words aren't prejudiced, the people that use them in an offensive way are.

My point.


This is where you are wrong. The fact is, there HAS been progression. Even among people who aren't necessarily pre-disposed to political correctness, the position has moved to at least the fact that they KNOW they are being offensive when they use certain terms.

So a bunch of people sitting around discussing the intricacies of the English language for no forseeable reason is "progress"? You might as well call Seinfeld "progress". In the US, more African-descended people are imprisoned than ever before, and with the emergence of HIV and the invention of crack cocaine, they suffer under more horrible material conditions than ever before. Yet the language we use to reference the racial dynamics of our country has gotten more polite.


This may be RevLeft, but to try and argue that PC was created as a capitalist tool to sneak oppression under the radar is deserving of a tin hat.

I'm not a tin hat conspiracy theorist, so I don't believe most social trends are consciously imposed. Almost all changes in capitalist society are almost-subconsciously implimented as a survival instinct.


How is common courtesy better?! Because it is! It is ridiculous to argue that it is a better world if all the racists just come right out and say what ever racial epithet is on their mind.

It would be ridiculous to say it would be a better world if they didn't, if they just stayed at home, brooded about it, and used those words in the privacy of the company like-minded individuals. Pushing these obnoxious ideas outside of the public sphere will just make them more covert and sinister.


They may embarass and expose themselves but it doesn't mean the person on the receiving end is jumping up and down, singing and dancing saying 'whoopee, at least I know you are a racist...

No, but it doesn't mean they're going to have an existential crisis or traumatic flash-back just because some drunken idiot at a bar is giving them a hard time. I obviously support their right to kick the drunken idiot in the balls.


The more that racists,homophobes or whatever are forced to reduce the bile they spew, the better the world is.

If we're going to "force" them to do anything, why not just shoot them? That way at least we don't have to figure out a way to feed them.


It may not tackle the intrinsic reasons of why they are racist, but at least they won't cause any mental anguish to others in the meantime

And what if the others aren't "anguished" but in fact amused?


twat.

Although the term "twat" is not popular among us yanks, among my very politically correct friends and other very politically correct communities in the US, any insult related to the genitals is considered "offensive" and politically incorrect. In fact, using any insult related to the female genitals (such as "twat") would be grounds for baseless accusations of sexism.

Similarly, I've had a friend of mine, using very politically correct language, tell me how "lower income people" are basically untrustworthy scum who shouldn't be allowed to breed. How much of a "twat" someone is is not nessicarily dependent on what languagwe they use.


The shocking thing about the image isn't about saying blacks and Irish are on the same level as dogs. The shocking thing is that just 40 years ago, the racism so endemic in British society was not only widespread but perfectly legal.

OK, and now things are different. Would a picture of a Starbucks, open to all for business, be less offensive?

In the US, you can look at, for example, state-produced primary education cirriculum. 50, 60 years ago, the cirricula would have likely have said all sorts of mean, desparaging things about the cultures of ethnic minorities such as Africans, Amrican Indians, Jews, and East Asians. Now, these peoples' cultures are co-opted, claimed as property of the state. Their culture is rewritten and repackaged along the terms of capitalist state bureaucrats. Anything that doesn't conform to their needs or preconcieved notions of what these societies should be like, or desires for what they should be like, is changed and re-written. Instead of casting away these peoples' cultures as worthless, their cultures are stolen from them, colonized, infected at the core with capitalist ideology.

Both of these methods justify colonial subjugation of certain ethnic groups. The latter is just more sophisticated and insideous.


It took action, campaigning and ultimately legislation to get such things stopped.

My point is that such legislation only served to aleviate the capitalist crisis, otherwise the ruling-class would never impliment it. Why is this a victory for our party?


Maybe you have your own particular circumstances in the US (and that's why I haven't quoted or responded those bits about the US as I don't have enough knowledge to comment) but here in the UK, there is so much emotional and social baggage that comes with the old Empire and then commonwealth as it became, and the Windrush generation that brought many immigrants from the West Indies to settle in the UK, to take up the huge amount of jobs that were created to rebuild Britain after the end of WWII, that such images still have a long-lasting and deep impact.

You don't think any of these things are untrue of the US?


The whole point about political correctness is not about 'banning' words, or sweeping oppressive language under the carpet of capitalism, it is a practical step that can be taken to alleviate the conditions of oppression

It doesn't aleviate anything, though. It doesn't alter material conditions. And it ignores equally racist notions, notions that are racist in more complex ways. (Such as a "progressive" middle-class white person trying to appropriate the culture of an Indian, and alter it to meet their romantic perceptions of what it should be like)


if racists are out in the open and to spout whatever they like to anyone thay like without being challenged, is so crazy

Who said they couldn't be challenged? If you challenged racists more often, you'd realize that they too are beginning to adopt PC language. Maybe that's just in the US, though....

, I can't even contemplate where you are going with that thought.

If a racist feels resentment at not being allowed to speak freely, well tough fucking shit, don't be a racist then!


It really can't be argued that society is worse now because of PC.

Not "because of" PC. But PC is a phenomenon that signals a change in society for the worse, a change towards a more sophisticated, neo-colonial form of caitalist control.


has been the growth of legislation to outlaw discrimination in the work place, employment rights, access, openness and more recently, offences such as 'incitement to cause racial hatred' and the impositioning of longer sentences for racially aggravated crimes.

In the US, legislation that was built up under the justification of penalizing racially aggravated crimes is now being used to prosecute anarchists, and anyone else who criticizes capitalists and the police.


It can also be seen that there have been greater moves on equality for gays and lesbians, whether it be the recognition of civil partnerships, or equal rights in terms of status recognition.

Almost every queer radical I know couldn't give a shit about gay marriage or "civil partnerships" for very good reason.


Without the advancement of political correctness, it really is hard to believe that a lot of these advancements would have been possible.

That's a little bit of a stretch. But you're right, they're related phenomenon, which is partly my point. I don't nessicarily see the capitalist system trying to integrate and appease historically oppressed groups as inherently progressive. It can actually stunt the development class-consciousness.


By foisting the offense certain words can cause on to the political arena, it has forced everyone to take stock of not only action, but language as well.

Has it impeded the radical right in organizing or obtaining more political power in any way?


There IS still a long way to go, but great strides have been made.

This is Kool-Aid drinking talk. What are we "striding" towards? The amelioration of capitalism, or self-determination for oppresed groups?


to try and argue that it has been in the interests of capitalism

How is it not within the interests of capitalism to mediate and pacify conflicts?

[hammer and sickle]

I explained to him that the reason that word was created and the way it's used (not to be mistaken for "nigga" - although White people still aren't allowed to use that either)." Total facepalm.
Are you saying its ok for African Americans to say "nigga"? I find it just as ignorant for anybody to use the word or any form of it! The word should be avoided by EVERYONE regardless of their skin tone.

[Sarah Palin]

With my "crazy gramps" I hear oriental, cripple, the blacks, "looks jewey," and calling women honey, etc. I reply by telling him to calm down and take his meds.
But all joking aside, if it's an older person, I'll interject myself and tell them to to calm down, and if they are on the younger side, I may do anything from full on debate them about their word choice to give them a menacing look.

I've given many a menacing look to the citizens of my town.

[rednordman]

Holly shit, check out this site :laugh::www.capc.co.uk
I know that people have boring lives nowadays and need something to moan about, but this takes the cake. Look at all the 'famous' people who have openly spoken out against political correctness 'tyranny':rolleyes:. Britain takes itself way too seriously. I cannot believe that magician Paul Danniels has referred to the 'oppressed white majority'.

[Pogue]

This phrase tends to come from the mouths of racists. Sort of people who thinks its PC to not call black people gollywogs.

[SoupIsGoodFood]

I hate political correctness. Too many leftists take their shit too serious. Everybody has to be a something-American. I guess I'm a "Cuban-American" to all the PC people out there, but I'd just rather call myself latino or Cuban. But as long as you don't call me "spic" if your aren't my friend I don't care. But like I hang out with mostly black kids and to say that other races can't say the word "Nigga" is dumb. As KRS-One pointed out in an interview with Bill O'rielly "In hip hop, everyones a nigga". But it is lame when like all white boys will be out calling each other that shit, but I just laugh at them, I don't get offended. Did I say "White boys"? I'm sorry, I meant "Caucasian Americans":D.

[NecroCommie]

SoupIsGoodFood is correct here I think. At least partially. Political correctness is full of completely made up shit. On the other hand it holds some civilized stuff also. I guess I'm somewhere in the middle, but leaning towards "fuck political correctness". For example, here it is a taboo to say anything in favour of Russia or russians. No matter how well reasoned your oppinions are, if you favour Russia or Russians most nationalists will get honestly angry at you. It is therefore political correctness here that everytime you say something in favour of either russia or china, you should also add something like: "But even with this, their human righs situation is horrible"... ... ... I never add anything like that, so I sometimes piss people off.

Nationalism at work.

[rednordman]

Yep but the thing is, I dont give a shit. I think that political parties and daft websites like the one i'v linked coming across as some sort of anti-pc vangard, is dangerous however. Its like they have good intentions, but ultimatley, will send society back to what it was like in the 70s. Though a lot of PC is indeed rubbish, some of it is there for GOOD reason.

[mikelepore]

(Response to the first post in this topic.)

What I find irritating is the myth that rules about acceptable speech are characteristic of the political left. The truth is, among people of various outlooks and viewpoints, both right and left, there are some remarks that are often considered in bad taste to say, and some remarks regarded almost as mandatory to say.

Commentators in the media produce the myth of a leftist "political correctness" by not mentioning the rules of acceptable speech that come from conservative sources. They don't recognize the latter because they automatically practice those rules themselves.

For example, in the U.S. people on television consider it in bad taste for anyone to refer to deaths of soldiers in war as a form of waste, or to say something like "they died for nothing." It's considered mandatory to say "they died for our freedom" or "they died defending out freedom". It's considered mandatory to add this phrase even if this comment is being appended to a remark about the war effort being unnecessary and unjust, where it must be added automatically without any attention being drawn to the contradiction between the initial remark and the appended phrase.

Conservatives consider it in bad taste to point out, in regard to the "philanthropy" of capitalists, their contributions to hospitals and universities, etc., that the contributors of the funding couldn't have given it away if they didn't already have it. They speak as though there can be no criticism of the practice of extracting wealth from others, provided that the person subsequently gives away a fraction of what they have expropriated. If you point out that the workers produced the wealth that the capitalist has made a public ceremony of giving away, many people react in horror as though you had screamed an obscenity in church.

Note the way atheists are depicted on TV.

Until Bill Maher got his first show in the 1990s, I don't know any previous occasion in which an on-air person was permitted to acknowledge being an atheist. The closest that anyone had ever seen before was the shocking moment in the early 1970s when the fictitious son-in-law character on 'All in the Family' said he was an agnostic. Fiction scriptwriters would tread carefully on thin ice, so when the Olympian god Apollo appeared on Star Trek in 1967, and Captain Kirk said to him "We have no need of gods", the writer added the quick clarification, "We find the one to be quite sufficient."

In any TV documentary that mentions Madalyn Murray O'Hare, the plaintiff who started the lawsuit that got the recitation of prayers removed from public schools in the U.S. in 1963, it's considered mandatory to call her "the most hated woman in America", an epithet that originally came from the cover of Life Magazine.

It's usually described as a form of considerable tolerance and mercy that, while schools in the U.S. instruct all students to stand up simultaneously and recite an incantation about "one nation, under God", those individuals who are atheists may be allowed to leave the room for a minute and then return, as though the institution is bending over backwards to be tolerant of crackpots as long as the decent people don't have to be in their presence.

It's true that the left is sometimes a source of "political correctness", but the pressures related to conservative attitudes are more prevalent and more imposing.

[Merces]

Generally political correctness places you within a set of rules as to how go about addressing individuals or groups. Liberal and leftist's are very fond of PC as was marx and his early works, and use it to further their agendas (riots, protests, etc), and to seemingly control societies views. To define PC is to define what society labels PC, therfore I do not believe in it's existence, nor believe its value. South Park and other shows like that are completely politically incorrect and make amazing arguments on both sides of the topic in which they are discussing.

I for one believe that this is social control, and a way to have individuals think in a tunnel vision rahter than have a free opinion. With control like this it is easy to redirect society from it's own free wills, to a plastic manmade societal norm.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I think this term has been dreamed up by fascists. What does it actually mean? It is just a buzzword used to justify their prejudice and bigotry.

[rednordman]

Generally political correctness places you within a set of rules as to how go about addressing individuals or groups. Liberal and leftist's are very fond of PC as was marx and his early works, and use it to further their agendas (riots, protests, etc), and to seemingly control societies views. To define PC is to define what society labels PC, therfore I do not believe in it's existence, nor believe its value. South Park and other shows like that are completely politically incorrect and make amazing arguments on both sides of the topic in which they are discussing.

I for one believe that this is social control, and a way to have individuals think in a tunnel vision rahter than have a free opinion. With control like this it is easy to redirect society from it's own free wills, to a plastic manmade societal norm.Thing is, if you where to eliminate political correction completely, where would the bar drop? Lets say if you have a child and he or she goes to school and has learning difficulties (I stress this is just an example) how would you feel if her or his fellow classmates made their lives a misery because they thought it was their right to do so as they came to the conclusion that they where simply born superiour? would you just sit there and say something stupid like, it will make him or her tough, or would you go to the school complain and then get a total lambating for being too political correct? Trust me, actually experiencing this kind of shit is not very nice. at all (not directly though to be fair).

You could just go nuts at me and state that im making a mountain out of molehill, but the more and more times goes on, the more and more im hearing people blaming absolutly everything on political correctness. As am I hearing people saying more and more sinister stuff too, and reaching new depths.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Thing is, if you where to eliminate political correction completely, where would the bar drop? Lets say if you have a child and he or she goes to school and has learning difficulties (I stress this is just an example) how would you feel if her or his fellow classmates made their lives a misery because they thought it was their right to do so as they came to the conclusion that they where simply born superiour? would you just sit there and say something stupid like, it will make him or her tough, or would you go to the school complain and then get a total lambating for being too political correct? Trust me, actually experiencing this kind of shit is not very nice. at all.

You could just go nuts at me and state that im making a mountain out of molehill, but the more and more times goes on, the more and more im hearing people blaming absolutley everything on political correctness. As am I hearing people saying more and more sinister stuff too, and reaching new depths.

Don't worry, he got restricted for that I think.

[rednordman]

Don't worry, he got restricted for that I think.Thats actually a shame. I would have loved to hear his answer.

[Agrippa]

Thing is, if you where to eliminate political correction completely, where would the bar drop? Lets say if you have a child and he or she goes to school and has learning difficulties (I stress this is just an example) how would you feel if her or his fellow classmates made their lives a misery because they thought it was their right to do so as they came to the conclusion that they where simply born superiour?

How does your hypothetical example relate to "political correctness"? If a bunch of assholes feel like bullying and psychologically torturing someone else for their performance at intellectual busy-work given by mandatory capitalist child-prison camp "schools", that's just anti-social behavior. There are plenty of "politically incorrect" people who are genuinely caring and kind-hearted and there are plenty of "politically correct" people who egotistical, elitist bullies.


would you just sit there and say something stupid like, it will make him or her tough, or would you go to the school complain and then get a total lambating for being too political correct?

As an anarchist I would rather my child solve her own problems than rely on petit-bourgeois administrators and middle-managers such as school principals to resolve her problems. Then again, my child wouldn't be in a capitalist indoctrination camp in the first place.

[rednordman]

How does your hypothetical example relate to "political correctness"? If a bunch of assholes feel like bullying and psychologically torturing someone else for their performance at intellectual busy-work given by mandatory capitalist child-prison camp "schools", that's just anti-social behavior. There are plenty of "politically incorrect" people who are genuinely caring and kind-hearted and there are plenty of "politically correct" people who egotistical, elitist bullies.



As an anarchist I would rather my child solve her own problems than rely on petit-bourgeois administrators and middle-managers such as school principals to resolve her problems. Then again, my child wouldn't be in a capitalist indoctrination camp in the first place.Well in a sence i agree with you about schools but the problem is, in my view, that the complaining about PCness is a relative thing. People will always find a thing to moan about and look for victims. Technically, it makes them feel better about themselves. I didnt like saying that, as im referring to the UK as if its full of bullies (obviously not totally true), but I believe that this is the consequences of a so called 'dog eat dog' world.

Everyone is looking for aboslutly anything to try and look better than the person next to them, thus will stoop to as low levels as society will let them.

This is in a case, an arguement for pc to a certain point. Of coarse, some people go way way too far. I do not deny this.

I say this as when discussing bullying with people over various random occasions, alot of people just showed zero understanding to the actual situations and circumstances of pupils and refered to this 'political corrections GONE MAD' thing. They didnt understand the kind of damage such things can cause (refering to genuine cases). All i can say is that it may make you tougher, but it also brings out darker sides too (and I wasnt seriously picked on either) that probably are not welcome.

[Agrippa]

This is in a case, an arguement for pc to a certain point.

Not really, it's more of an argument for self-determination.

[rosie]

When I encounter anyone complaining about politically correct language, I tell them it is not impossible to be p.c. It is very possible, and quite probable, to speak proper English. I tell people, by no means should you be a linguist (unless you truly want to), but making an attempt to be polite when conversing with others (especially in public) is important. When someone brings up the point of free speech, I remind them that " A.) I am in no way an advocate for free speech and B.) that one's freedom of speech is only "free" (that definition has yet to be determined...different thread) until it hits my ear drums. Then it is no longer free. It is offensive to me and others and I don't appreciate hearing the perpetuation of racism, sexism, or otherwise xenophobic language and nuances. " If this doesn't quell the idiocy of the American bastardized version of ANY language, I usually walk away or grab a more well read friend of mine to debate the imbecile.

[Agrippa]

When I encounter anyone complaining about politically correct language, I tell them it is not impossible to be p.c. It is very possible, and quite probable, to speak proper English.

Do the standards of what is and is not "proper English" exist in a vacuum? Is the production of textbooks, dictionaries, and census-forms exempt from the dictates of capital?

Is it "proper", for example, to colonize the names of African and Indian people with the word "American"? "Proper" to whom? Us? Or the people who want to co-opt ethnic identity politics and channel its energy into post-modern neo-jingoism?


I tell people, by no means should you be a linguist (unless you truly want to), but making an attempt to be polite when conversing with others (especially in public) is important.

But is it natural for basic standards of politeness to be modified every month in accordance every mass-media prompted newspeak? Is impossible to be polite without using ugly-sounding and clumsy acronyms like "LGBT", and cheesy, patronizing euphemisms like "differently abled"? To me, it's incredibly impolite, thoughtless and condescending.


If this doesn't quell the idiocy of the American bastardized version of ANY language

Ah yes, the uniquely decadent nature of American society. :cool:

[rednordman]

Not really, it's more of an argument for self-determination.Isnt that more towards the conservatives arguement against political correctness?

[War Cry]

Language is representative of the racist, sexist, homophobic and classist mentalities that are held by the general public. I have a harder time explaining that to people who struggle with supposedly politically correct language.

Take the word "*****" for example. The casual use of that word, in my experience, is far more common than the use of the n-word (of course, I live in Portland, OR, which has a...nasty history and a complicated political climate). A majority of the general population is aware that that word is absolutely atrocious with an awful historical root. But *****? Not so much. ***** means female dog. To call a woman a ***** is to tell her that she is less than human. To use ***** to describe a difficult situation (which it quite often is) is to say that women who are difficult are less than human. I don't think that's a far stretch of the imagination.

See, the problem with that word is not that it offends people. It's not that it hurts my feelings. It's that ***** = less than human. Less than human = okay to rape. Every time someone uses the word *****, it perpetuates the notion that women are substandard citizens and it's perfectly acceptable and okay to do what ever you see fit to them, including rape, beat, degrade, terrorize, ect.

And that mentality is represented by the entire culture. Fifteen out of sixteen rapists walk. (please dear god, no one start an argument on false rape reports, I do not want to hear it)

Politically correct language does have some downsides. It keeps all the racist, sexist, classist notions people have swimming around in their skulls right up there in the skulls. Until they're brought forward, they can't be deconstructed and confronted. My concern isn't the moron in the bar screaming his head off about immigrants. He's messed up and racist, and is going to keep saying messed up and racist things regardless of PC language until someone changes his mind or bashes his head in. I'm not saying that it shouldn't be taken care of, but at least its quite obvious and easy to see. My major concern is the twenty two year old anarchist organizer who interrupts women at meetings, and navigates his organizing circles with subtle oppression without ever once uttering the word *****. That is far harder to spot, and far harder to confront.

Maybe that's a little off topic though. I guess I'm more concerned about critiquing the notions behind the language than I am about scrambling to find words that don't offend anyone. Creating a culture of asking is a good step in that direction. When meeting someone, ask their preferred pronoun. Respect people's identities. I know a lot of folks who refuse to be called African-American because they don't identify as American, or they don't identify as African. That should be okay.

[zerozerozerominusone]

I'm sure you've all heard the phrase I used for the title, probably from the ignorant right-wing bastard propping up the bar at your local. The question is how do you deal with it, how do you try to clear up a lot of the myths about Politically Correct language?

The common ones I hear are "Political Correctness is an imposition on free speech." - I generally point out that people are only PC when they want to avoid offending people, it is no more an imposition on your free speech than politness. Simply because people will be angry and offended when you start talking about how the world is being ruined by the pakis/retards/poofters doesn't mean they've taken away your right to be a tosser.

I also get to hear, at least once a week, about cases that are either clearly and famously made up ("you can't call them manhole covers anymore, they have to be personhole covers") or the result of a single misguided person ("thy don't let you say blackboard in schools anymore" If this happened at all it was in one school, possibly as the result of a single overzaealous headmaster.).

What kind of things do you encounter and how do you reply?

People who become "offended" by the words of others are fools and in fact are guilty of offending themselves. To "offend" means to attack in a material fashion. Unless you are sending a fist my way, there is little you can do to offend me. I may find your words disagreeable, but I will never say I have been offended by them. It is idiotic on its face.

Political correctness is a penultimate stupidity. People are entitled to their opinions. They are entitled to express those opinions, even if we don't like them. I have literally met a person who was offended at anyone telling them "good morning". If I cannot call a homo a "faggot", a black man a "nigger", or a jew a "kike", by the standards such terms have been "banned" we should not be able to say good morning to that person I mention. Where does it stop? PC is a load of disingenuous, panty-waisted, pseduo intellectual crap.

I might also point out that from a strategic/tactical standpoint, I greatly prefer those who dislike me for whatever reason to express that dislike. If I were black, I would be grateful to hear that guy over there call me a nigger because I then know to avoid him. Better that than to have him come smiling and shank my guts all over the floor. In such matters most people have become unfathomably stupid. If you disallow the honest expression of opinion, even those you don't care for, you drive below the surface where it festers and cooks and one day surfaces as rage, and often as violence. I'd rather see people call each other niggers and kikes and queers than to hold it in until they go mad and start shooting or slashing or pushing the pedal to the metal.

This is part of tolerance - a word that gets bandied about an awful lot, yet those same people fail to practice it except hypocritically. Tolerate the bigot. It's OK. It doesn't mean you agree with the stated opinion in any way or degree. It simply means you respect others enought to allow them to express themselves, even when they are king-sized rat's asses. Becoming angry at and intolerant of such things is ultimately self-defeating.

Let me ask you this: why, when someone calls something you say "politically correct" do you feel the need to justify yourself? Your opinions and mannerisms in expressing your positions are yours. If someone doesn't like it, they don't have to. If you're comfy with your positions, that should be good enough. I see no reason to justify or otherwise explain yourself to anyone.

[zerozerozerominusone]

Language is representative of the racist, sexist, homophobic and classist mentalities that are held by the general public. I have a harder time explaining that to people who struggle with supposedly politically correct language.

May I take it that you mean the particular use of language?


Take the word "*****" for example. The casual use of that word, in my experience, is far more common than the use of the n-word

You mean "nigger"? Don't be afraid. It's just another word. :)


(of course, I live in Portland, OR, which has a...nasty history and a complicated political climate).

Hey, PDX is one of my favorite towns. Used to live 'cross the river in Vancouver


A majority of the general population is aware that that word is absolutely atrocious with an awful historical root.

The word is atrocious? Are you serious?


But *****? Not so much. ***** means female dog. To call a woman a ***** is to tell her that she is less than human. To use ***** to describe a difficult situation (which it quite often is) is to say that women who are difficult are less than human. I don't think that's a far stretch of the imagination.

This idiotic use of "*****" comes to us compliments of the ghetto.


See, the problem with that word is not that it offends people. It's not that it hurts my feelings.

Be hurt if you please, but at least ask yourself this: what is the payoff for being hurt by such an innocuous thing? THis use of "*****" is graceless, stupid, etc. but it can only hurt you if you make it so. If I started cursing you out in Hungarian with a smile on my face and a lilting tone in my voice, would you be hurt? Not likely. You might even like it because of that lilting, charming smile - yet I've called you things that cannot be reproduced in English for vitreol and bile (Hungarian is THE language in which to learn to swear - it is absolutely the best on the planet). My point is that words are sounds. They have no value whatsoever except those we assign to them. You may not like the use. I certainly do not - I find it vulgar in the extreme. But it never hurts me. Ever. THis all boils down to the question of who is the master of your life - you, or others. If you, then cut the crap with being hurt by the use of such words, because that is all it is - crap. If others, then by all means allow yourself to be manipulated and commanded like a slave living at the whim and caprice of others. And I mean this sincerely and with no malice or sarcasm. If you want to me a slave, then by all means be one. I won't be following suit. :)


It's that ***** = less than human. Less than human = okay to rape.[/quote[]

This is a stretch. It may be so in some peoples' minds, but not in all. I don't look at it this way.

[quote][ Every time someone uses the word *****, it perpetuates the notion that women are substandard citizens and it's perfectly acceptable and okay to do what ever you see fit to them, including rape, beat, degrade, terrorize, ect.

Again, it may be the case for some, but not for all. I just find it disgustingly vulgar and vile - ingracious and nasty. I don't refer to women as "*****" unless they are behaving as one. I refer to women as "women" or "girls". I am fond of them in general and see nothing worthwhile in labeling them so ingraciously.


And that mentality is represented by the entire culture.

Jesus... don't you think this is just a little bit over-generalized?


Fifteen out of sixteen rapists walk. (please dear god, no one start an argument on false rape reports, I do not want to hear it)

Politically correct language does have some downsides. It keeps all the racist, sexist, classist notions people have swimming around in their skulls right up there in the skulls. Until they're brought forward, they can't be deconstructed and confronted. My concern isn't the moron in the bar screaming his head off about immigrants. He's messed up and racist, and is going to keep saying messed up and racist things regardless of PC language until someone changes his mind or bashes his head in....

...which isn't a solution.


I'm not saying that it shouldn't be taken care of, but at least its quite obvious and easy to see. My major concern is the twenty two year old anarchist organizer who interrupts women at meetings, and navigates his organizing circles with subtle oppression without ever once uttering the word *****. That is far harder to spot, and far harder to confront.

I don't see this as an issue at all. You just keep on being the best person you can be and leave the rest to itself. Attempting to "improve" humanity has been going on ceaselessly since ancient times and it has failed without a single exception. Improve yourself as best you can. I will do the same for myself. Perhaps some will learn by the examples we set. Others will not and there is no point in attempting to force the issue. People some around when they are ready. Some never are and that is a gravity issue.




Maybe that's a little off topic though. I guess I'm more concerned about critiquing the notions behind the language than I am about scrambling to find words that don't offend anyone. Creating a culture of asking is a good step in that direction. When meeting someone, ask their preferred pronoun.

Eh? Not sure what you mean here. Would I refer to a "he" as "she" is he, erm... I mean she preferred it that way?


Respect people's identities.

Within obvious limits.


I know a lot of folks who refuse to be called African-American because they don't identify as American, or they don't identify as African. That should be okay.

Agreed, but it is not my job to keep track of everyone's preferences for fear of offending. If I offer words with all respectful intentions, anyone getting their undies in a bunch is responsible for it and not I. In this we see that respect cuts all ways.

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

People who become "offended" by the words of others are fools and in fact are guilty of offending themselves. To "offend" means to attack in a material fashion. Unless you are sending a fist my way, there is little you can do to offend me. I may find your words disagreeable, but I will never say I have been offended by them. It is idiotic on its face.

Political correctness is a penultimate stupidity. People are entitled to their opinions. They are entitled to express those opinions, even if we don't like them. I have literally met a person who was offended at anyone telling them "good morning". If I cannot call a homo a "faggot", a black man a "nigger", or a jew a "kike", by the standards such terms have been "banned" we should not be able to say good morning to that person I mention. Where does it stop? PC is a load of disingenuous, panty-waisted, pseduo intellectual crap.

I might also point out that from a strategic/tactical standpoint, I greatly prefer those who dislike me for whatever reason to express that dislike. If I were black, I would be grateful to hear that guy over there call me a nigger because I then know to avoid him. Better that than to have him come smiling and shank my guts all over the floor. In such matters most people have become unfathomably stupid. If you disallow the honest expression of opinion, even those you don't care for, you drive below the surface where it festers and cooks and one day surfaces as rage, and often as violence. I'd rather see people call each other niggers and kikes and queers than to hold it in until they go mad and start shooting or slashing or pushing the pedal to the metal.

This is part of tolerance - a word that gets bandied about an awful lot, yet those same people fail to practice it except hypocritically. Tolerate the bigot. It's OK. It doesn't mean you agree with the stated opinion in any way or degree. It simply means you respect others enought to allow them to express themselves, even when they are king-sized rat's asses. Becoming angry at and intolerant of such things is ultimately self-defeating.

Let me ask you this: why, when someone calls something you say "politically correct" do you feel the need to justify yourself? Your opinions and mannerisms in expressing your positions are yours. If someone doesn't like it, they don't have to. If you're comfy with your positions, that should be good enough. I see no reason to justify or otherwise explain yourself to anyone.

Why would you want a racist to verbally assault you? I would rather that they piss off. I really don't see how allowing racists to be loud-mouthed assholes is a solution to racism. Certain words are offensive. People use these words in an aggressive manner to attack others and get an emotional reaction. It's really just about respect. You probably wouldn't say to your neighbor, "Good morning, you fucking idiot." Even if you believe that, is it better to say that to your neighbor everyday?

And of course the context of a word can change, if it is used in literature or satire for example, but I can't think of constructive reason to call someone a "nigger."

[War Cry]

People who become "offended" by the words of others are fools and in fact are guilty of offending themselves. To "offend" means to attack in a material fashion. Unless you are sending a fist my way, there is little you can do to offend me. I may find your words disagreeable, but I will never say I have been offended by them. It is idiotic on its face.

Actually, it doesn't. It means to cause difficulty, discomfort or injury.


Political correctness is a penultimate stupidity. People are entitled to their opinions. They are entitled to express those opinions, even if we don't like them. I have literally met a person who was offended at anyone telling them "good morning". If I cannot call a homo a "faggot", a black man a "nigger", or a jew a "kike", by the standards such terms have been "banned" we should not be able to say good morning to that person I mention. Where does it stop?

That is an unreasonable argument. It's sounds exactly the same as the homophobic anti-gay marriage supporters who said that if we legalized gay marriage people would marry their goats. Come back when you have something to say that doesn't qualify as a logical fallacy.


PC is a load of disingenuous, panty-waisted, pseduo intellectual crap.

Did you seriously just say panty-waisted? Why the fuck is femininity always equated with weakness.


I might also point out that from a strategic/tactical standpoint, I greatly prefer those who dislike me for whatever reason to express that dislike. If I were black, I would be grateful to hear that guy over there call me a nigger because I then know to avoid him. Better that than to have him come smiling and shank my guts all over the floor. In such matters most people have become unfathomably stupid. If you disallow the honest expression of opinion, even those you don't care for, you drive below the surface where it festers and cooks and one day surfaces as rage, and often as violence. I'd rather see people call each other niggers and kikes and queers than to hold it in until they go mad and start shooting or slashing or pushing the pedal to the metal.

But you're not black. You have no idea what that feels like. I don't know who you are, but if I was going to give into my assumptions, I'd say you're a straight white man. Have you ever had a oppressive epitaph thrown your way?


This is part of tolerance - a word that gets bandied about an awful lot, yet those same people fail to practice it except hypocritically. Tolerate the bigot. It's OK. It doesn't mean you agree with the stated opinion in any way or degree. It simply means you respect others enought to allow them to express themselves, even when they are king-sized rat's asses. Becoming angry at and intolerant of such things is ultimately self-defeating.

I will not tolerate individuals who threaten my existence, autonomy and safety. Words lead to fear of violence. I can't kiss my girlfriend in public because I'm afraid the Nazi down the street will firebomb my house. You're speaking of things you know nothing about.


Let me ask you this: why, when someone calls something you say "politically correct" do you feel the need to justify yourself? Your opinions and mannerisms in expressing your positions are yours. If someone doesn't like it, they don't have to. If you're comfy with your positions, that should be good enough. I see no reason to justify or otherwise explain yourself to anyone.

Because they're using "politically correct" to invalidate my viewpoints. I'd rather not let that happen.

[Outinleftfield]

Theres more right-wing political correctness. During the Bush years many people were derided for not being politically correct towards Bush's war policy. For example the Dixie Chicks. And it continues. Crazy righties like Ann Coulter get to be on Fox News while the radical left is absent from the mainstream media. And remember that "mediaopoly" skit that was removed from saturday night live after playing just once. This whole concern about "political correctness" is another example of right-wing doublespeak about the media. They control the media through their monopolized corporate control and they use the media to say we have a "liberal media" and "left-wing bias". This is also seen in the parties. The Democrats for all their faults try to have a big tent that tolerates many opinions while the Republicans generally toe the party line. It's the right that has problems with political correctness, not the left.

However, I think getting heated up over a few words is generally ridiculous. Even a revolutionary needs to know how to joke and not take everything seriously, though there are some things that cross the line.

[rednordman]

Theres more right-wing political correctness. During the Bush years many people were derided for not being politically correct towards Bush's war policy. For example the Dixie Chicks. And it continues. Crazy righties like Ann Coulter get to be on Fox News while the radical left is absent from the mainstream media. And remember that "mediaopoly" skit that was removed from saturday night live after playing just once. This whole concern about "political correctness" is another example of right-wing doublespeak about the media. They control the media through their monopolized corporate control and they use the media to say we have a "liberal media" and "left-wing bias". This is also seen in the parties. The Democrats for all their faults try to have a big tent that tolerates many opinions while the Republicans generally toe the party line. It's the right that has problems with political correctness, not the left.

However, I think getting heated up over a few words is generally ridiculous. Even a revolutionary needs to know how to joke and not take everything seriously, though there are some things that cross the line.What frustrates me is how when someone says something nasty, and you do not react like you find it the funniest thing ever, they look at you as if your some extreme politically correct nation killer.

Seriously. Its becoming a problem for me now. Worse thing is, that people seem to expect me to say something that agrees with their bigotry as well, just pretending to be amused isnt enough.

The right definitly has problems with its own political correctness. As someone else has already mentioned (necrocommie i think), you cannot say anything negative against your nation, or nations ideal allies (generally the USA). Otherwise people will come up with these stupid fucking terms to pigeonhole you. You know: extreme, liberal, leftist, pathetic, political correct, bitter, spitfull, jealous, naive, utopian, terrorist sypathiser, dinosaw, etc...And the right still have the cheek to turn round and say that everyone blames them for everything, then accuse us of being self absorbed.

As for this assumed left-wing media bias, this is something the right is obsessed with in the UK. They seem to think that the BBC is some sort of communist TV channel, even though it usually shows communism in a negative light. Why?..Probably because one of the intro sequences shows a few black wheelchair basketball players - "Oh god, the diversity - how awful!":rolleyes:.

[War Cry]

You mean "nigger"? Don't be afraid. It's just another word. :)

No. It's not just another word. Its a word that has facilitated the lynching, beating and terrorizing of an entire population of people. As someone who is white, I refuse to use that language even during political conversations. I will not continue to uphold the mentality that white people can utter that word as long as its safely held within the constraints of certain dialogues. I have no right to say that word.





The word is atrocious? Are you serious?

As serious as a lynch mob.



This idiotic use of "*****" comes to us compliments of the ghetto.

You need to check your history. The use of the word ***** was first used in 1811 as the highest insult you could use against a woman of European decent. Compliments of colonizing white men, actually.



Be hurt if you please, but at least ask yourself this: what is the payoff for being hurt by such an innocuous thing? THis use of "*****" is graceless, stupid, etc. but it can only hurt you if you make it so. If I started cursing you out in Hungarian with a smile on my face and a lilting tone in my voice, would you be hurt? Not likely. You might even like it because of that lilting, charming smile - yet I've called you things that cannot be reproduced in English for vitreol and bile (Hungarian is THE language in which to learn to swear - it is absolutely the best on the planet). My point is that words are sounds. They have no value whatsoever except those we assign to them. You may not like the use. I certainly do not - I find it vulgar in the extreme. But it never hurts me. Ever. THis all boils down to the question of who is the master of your life - you, or others. If you, then cut the crap with being hurt by the use of such words, because that is all it is - crap. If others, then by all means allow yourself to be manipulated and commanded like a slave living at the whim and caprice of others. And I mean this sincerely and with no malice or sarcasm. If you want to me a slave, then by all means be one. I won't be following suit. :)
If you read a little more carefully, you'd notice that I said specifically it doesn't hurt my feelings. I'll just discount this argument completely seeing as its built on a false premise.



This is a stretch. It may be so in some peoples' minds, but not in all. I don't look at it this way.

It would probably be more effective to tell me why it's a stretch than just tell me that it's a stretch. Am I supposed to just take your assertion as fact? And of course, because you don't see it that way, I'm wrong. You must represent the entire population, right? Androcentrism at its best.



Again, it may be the case for some, but not for all. I just find it disgustingly vulgar and vile - ingracious and nasty. I don't refer to women as "*****" unless they are behaving as one. I refer to women as "women" or "girls". I am fond of them in general and see nothing worthwhile in labeling them so ingraciously.

Women are called *****es when they don't fit the stereotypes of femininity. Women who are outspoken, direct, assertive, successful, insubordinate and empowered are called *****es. If we speak our minds, we're nagging *****es. If we refuse to submit, we're headstrong *****es. Calling a woman a ***** is the easiest way to invalidate and blow off everything she is saying. It's avoidance at its best.



Jesus... don't you think this is just a little bit over-generalized?

No. No, no, no, no. Can I say it more? No, I don't. We live in a rape culture.



...which isn't a solution.

It can be. Nazi's who are afraid to walk down the street unless they're no longer Nazi's are safe Nazi's.

"The freedom of one cannot infringe on the freedom of another." --Bakunin

When people act oppressively, either verbally or through physical threat, they are infringing on my freedom to navigate the world without fear and with autonomy and self-determination. Therefore, if they don't stop on their own accord, well. That's their choice. It will be met with resistance in any way the oppressed see fit.



I don't see this as an issue at all. You just keep on being the best person you can be and leave the rest to itself. Attempting to "improve" humanity has been going on ceaselessly since ancient times and it has failed without a single exception. Improve yourself as best you can. I will do the same for myself. Perhaps some will learn by the examples we set. Others will not and there is no point in attempting to force the issue. People some around when they are ready. Some never are and that is a gravity issue.

Sounds like someone who isn't impacted by the racist, sexist, homophobic behavior of others. Just let people continue being oppressive, it's okay. They'll never learn, but we know better. That's effective. That makes me very safe, and totally free. Oh well, that guy keeps interrupting me. That's okay, he'll learn from my example of perfect manners or he won't and that's fine. I'll just sit with my oppression and get over it.

Good lord.



Eh? Not sure what you mean here. Would I refer to a "he" as "she" is he, erm... I mean she preferred it that way?

Sometimes your immediate assumption of someone's gender is actually off the mark. People who are genderqueer prefer gender neutral pronouns such as "they."





Agreed, but it is not my job to keep track of everyone's preferences for fear of offending. If I offer words with all respectful intentions, anyone getting their undies in a bunch is responsible for it and not I. In this we see that respect cuts all ways.

Yeah. And when they tell you to call them something else, you listen and respect that.

[zerozerozerominusone]

Really? I always thought "Native American" was more accurate than "Indian" since those people are natives of the continent of America. The "Indian" label is based off colonial ignorance.

I sweat a lot with indians - mainly Hopi, Navajo, and Lakota. They hate being called "native American" and greatly prefer being called "indian".

[zerozerozerominusone]

Thing is, if you where to eliminate political correction completely, where would the bar drop? Lets say if you have a child and he or she goes to school and has learning difficulties (I stress this is just an example) how would you feel if her or his fellow classmates made their lives a misery because they thought it was their right to do so as they came to the conclusion that they where simply born superiour? would you just sit there and say something stupid like, it will make him or her tough, or would you go to the school complain and then get a total lambating for being too political correct? Trust me, actually experiencing this kind of shit is not very nice. at all (not directly though to be fair).

Methinks you need a better example. A much better one. Children ought not be allowed to run wild. If adults will not teach them about civil behavior, then it is virtually guaranteed they will grow into uncivil adults. Many end up that way even with proper training in manners.

Workng your question about where the "bar drop[s]", when is an opinion OK? When if offends nobody? Good luck there. You end up with people talking a lot and saying nothing.

"I like vanilla" - someone gets all offended by this... now I cannot say that I like vanilla? I am not responsible for the feelings of others, even if I say nasty things, which I do try to avoid at all reasonable cost. But if I feel you need to hear something and you don't like it - tough crackers. If you don't like it enough you are always open to take a swing at me, I suppose, but that might buy you more trouble than you bargained for. :)


You could just go nuts at me and state that im making a mountain out of molehill, but the more and more times goes on, the more and more im hearing people blaming absolutly everything on political correctness. As am I hearing people saying more and more sinister stuff too, and reaching new depths.

PC drives real sentiments beneath the surface. No wonder people go postal and kill a dozen at a time. It isn't healthy. Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one. If someone doesn't like black people because they are black, that is their right. You cannot force your values on people - it simply will not work. Push too hard and people start pushing back. Go too far and someone is going to kill you for it. You don't have to like someone's opinions but you do have to tolerate them. Or you can choose to leave the area. Shitty opinions are easy to deal with. It's called being an adult who has chosen to cowboy up just a tiny little bit and not let sounds issuing from the piehole of another person dictate their feelings. PC is ridiculous and unhealthy.

[zerozerozerominusone]

Why would you want a racist to verbally assault you?

I don't want them to, per se. But if someone feels enough enmity for me that they would wish to do me real harm, I'd much rather they telegraph it than keep it secret until the knife is spilling my kidneys on the sidewalk. If you prefer they smile at you while wanting to stomp your ass into a grave, then by all means knock yourself out. I prefer to have stupid people tell me in clear terms just what their true intentions are. That way I can avoid those who pose potential threats to my welfare. This should not be very hard to wrap your head around, eh?



I would rather that they piss off.

Sure, but you don't always get what you wish for. The question here becomes, given they don't piss off, what woudl you prefer - blissful ignorance just prior to getting your ass beaten into a coma, or an outwardly unpleasant message that enables you to make a smart and rational choice about where it is you really want to be at that moment?


I really don't see how allowing racists to be loud-mouthed assholes is a solution to racism.

We were talking of racist opinions, which is not racism. If I stand on a corner and call someone a nigger that does not constitute and act of racism. It just makes me an asshole. If I take a bat and smash a black person's head just because he is black, that would constitute racism. An act can be racist only if it materially affects the target. Calling names does not. If I call a jew a kike in Kiswahili and they don't speak the language, we will see that no harm will have come to that person. If we switch to English, say, and the person falls to the ground in convulsions (kidding), we will see that it was they who offended themselves through a refusal to exercise self-control. Responsibility cuts both ways.


Certain words are offensive.

No, they are not. No such thing. You are, simply stated, wrong.


People use these words in an aggressive manner to attack others and get an emotional reaction.

And those who provide them with what they want have fallen for the bait. That is their own fault, unless you truly believe that they are not responsible for their feelings and responses.


It's really just about respect.

Now here we are in agreement.


You probably wouldn't say to your neighbor, "Good morning, you fucking idiot." Even if you believe that, is it better to say that to your neighbor everyday?

Once again we are in agreement. But if I did say such a thing, my neighbor then is faced with a choice to lower himself to the bait or not. Whatever he chooses, make no mistake that it was a choice. No force was involved. Someoen put out a piece of bait and they took it, hook, line, and sinker. That is their mistake, even if the other party is indeed nothing better than a petty asshole.


And of course the context of a word can change, if it is used in literature or satire for example, but I can't think of constructive reason to call someone a "nigger."

I said nothing about constructive reasons. I only said that is it every person's prerogative to say what is on their mind, whether stupid or otherwise. It is likewise the recipient's prerogative to choose how to respond. If you are smart and in possession of yourself, you don't take the bait. If you do, consequences will be forthcoming, no matter what the flavor.

[zerozerozerominusone]

Actually, it doesn't. It means to cause difficulty, discomfort or injury.



That is an unreasonable argument. It's sounds exactly the same as the homophobic anti-gay marriage supporters who said that if we legalized gay marriage people would marry their goats. Come back when you have something to say that doesn't qualify as a logical fallacy.

Point out the fallacy. Logic is my living, so be precise.




Did you seriously just say panty-waisted? Why the fuck is femininity always equated with weakness.

Where on earth do you get that? Get a grip on yourself, please.




But you're not black. You have no idea what that feels like.

I don't need to. I know what it is like to be one of the only white boys in a black 'hood in 1967 when it was open season on little white boys. I know what it is like to have a small crowd of black racist bastards chasing me through the alleyways with all intentions of killing me when they caught me.

Don't even try to go there with me because you don't know what you're talking about.


I don't know who you are, but if I was going to give into my assumptions, I'd say you're a straight white man. Have you ever had a oppressive epitaph thrown your way?

Does a bullet qualify?



I will not tolerate individuals who threaten my existence, autonomy and safety.

And words do nothing to threaten that. Only action can do that. There is nothing I can say to you that will cause your bones to break.


Words lead to fear of violence.

Speak for yourself. They don't in my world.


I can't kiss my girlfriend in public because I'm afraid the Nazi down the street will firebomb my house. You're speaking of things you know nothing about.

Whatever you say.


Because they're using "politically correct" to invalidate my viewpoints. I'd rather not let that happen.

You seem to ahve done a rather good job of invalidating them yourself. No offense intended.

[zerozerozerominusone]

Actually, it doesn't. It means to cause difficulty, discomfort or injury.

From the Latin "fendere" - to [physically] strike

That is the true meaning of the word.

Because they're using "politically correct" to invalidate my viewpoints. I'd rather not let that happen.[/QUOTE]

So what you are saying is that other peoples' opinions of you are more important to you than your own. Interesting, in a morbidly insecure sort of way. I mean, this is the logic of your position, as stated in your own words. Nobody can invalidate your viewpoint unless you allow it. You don't have to accept anyone's opinions... not even mine, and those are pretty god-like. :)

I don't think that's the real issue. You just want everyone to agree with you. I am afraid that is not likely to happen, so why get in a bunch over it? Let people have their opinions just as you have yours. I will say it again: respect cuts all ways.

[zerozerozerominusone]

Just use the feminine form then, 'her' instead of 'him' etc. :thumbup1:

Except that it is grammatically incorrect. The proper third person pronoun in English is either masculine, "he" or "him", or neuter "it".

Abuse of language is dangerous stuff.

[Lumpen Bourgeois]

People who become "offended" by the words of others are fools and in fact are guilty of offending themselves. To "offend" means to attack in a material fashion. Unless you are sending a fist my way, there is little you can do to offend me. I may find your words disagreeable, but I will never say I have been offended by them. It is idiotic on its face.

I happen to be a lowly, raging nigger myself. The word "nigger" in particular doesn't offend me. But I empathize with those who would be offended by that very word. You say "offend" means "to attack in a material fashion." This is true, but it can also mean "to cause anger, displeasure or to annoy". The word "nigger" happens to be "offensive" to, you might say, overly sensitive negroes because it causes them displeasure. Hence, it would not be incorrect to say that the word is offensive.

Of course, my dictionary whence I derived the meaning of "offend" may be slighty bias because it was most likely written by a bunch of politically correct hooked nosed hymies.;)

[zerozerozerominusone]

No. ["Nigger] ss not just another word.

If it isn't to you, that is fine. Whatever floats your boat. For me, it is just another sound. That doesn't mean it cannot have a nasty meaning asssociated with it, but so what? It still cannot hurt anyone who refuses to allow it to hurt them. If a stranger pulls a gun and venilates you, then you will really be hurt, and then you will be wishing like hell they'd just called you a "nigger" or some such because that shit won't kill you the way the bullet will.


Its a word that has facilitated the lynching, beating and terrorizing of an entire population of people.

And if it hadn't, some other word would have. Oh, if only I could go back in time and replace "nigger" with "god" or "angel". What a wrench that would have tossed into the works! :)


As someone who is white, I refuse to use that language even during political conversations. I will not continue to uphold the mentality that white people can utter that word as long as its safely held within the constraints of certain dialogues. I have no right to say that word.

OK. I, on the other hand, reserve every right to use that word in any way I please. Nothing special there, as I reserve the same right for every other world in existence, out of existence, or yet to come into existence. :) Words do not frighten me.



If you read a little more carefully, you'd notice that I said specifically it doesn't hurt my feelings. I'll just discount this argument completely seeing as its built on a false premise.

Well I'll be a son of a.... *****... Bwaaaa haa haa haa....

I completely misread what you wrote. My apologies. I thought you wrote that such words hurt your feelings. OK, well, I stand corrected on that point. Sorry for the confusion.


It would probably be more effective to tell me why it's a stretch than just tell me that it's a stretch. Am I supposed to just take your assertion as fact? And of course, because you don't see it that way, I'm wrong. You must represent the entire population, right? Androcentrism at its best.

I didn't say you were wrong. I just said that the generalization was a stretch. It is because not all people take it the same way that you do. I am just one example.


Women are called *****es when they don't fit the stereotypes of femininity. Women who are outspoken, direct, assertive, successful, insubordinate and empowered are called *****es. If we speak our minds, we're nagging *****es. If we refuse to submit, we're headstrong *****es. Calling a woman a ***** is the easiest way to invalidate and blow off everything she is saying. It's avoidance at its best.

Once again you appear to make the error of believing that anyone can invalidate your feelings without your consent. I don't give a rat's ass what anyone calls me. I may not like it, but I sure as hell am not going to get in a bunch over it, though I may take careful note in case of a pending physical situation. Now, let me be clear that this does not allow for people invading the personal physical space of others. For example, I would not cotton to anyone following someone else around town and calling her "*****" (or whatever), as that becomes physical hassassment. Expressing one's opinions does not extend to invasions of personal space. For example, if someone wishes to get all verbally bellicose with me, they'd best remain at least an arm's length from my person. If they invade that space, they will notified about it.


No. No, no, no, no. Can I say it more? No, I don't. We live in a rape culture.

Not quite following you. Rape culture? How do you mean this?



It can be. Nazi's who are afraid to walk down the street unless they're no longer Nazi's are safe Nazi's.

And that's as fucked as anything you can name. Even the NAZI is entitled to his opinion without fear of retaliation. Anything less is hypocrisy.



When people act oppressively, either verbally or through physical threat, they are infringing on my freedom to navigate the world without fear and with autonomy and self-determination.

Agreed on the physical threat part, but not the verbal. Believe it if you will, but be aware that you limit and hobble yourself by placing yourself at the mercy of others. If you think for a minute that people will stop being people just because you want them to, you're fooling yourself. Some people are cool - some aren't. That's life. My suggestion to you, and I mean this very seriously, is to be more the master of your own life. Learn to recognize a true threat and dispense with all the rest. Thirtyfive years of martial arts has taught me the value of this basic tenet. Words are never a threat, though they may be harbingers of real threats. That is why I say be grateful when someone is so stupid as to give his intentions away so freely to you. I doesn't make it pleasant, but it makes you smarter. Better that than a knife in the back when you are not expecting it.

Be more powerful. Put yourself outside "their" reach. Most often people uttering such words in such ways are looking for validation through your response. Deny them their dose of self-importance. That will drive them nuts. Walk away (but keep they eyes in the back of your head wide open). That is personal power.


Therefore, if they don't stop on their own accord, well. That's their choice. It will be met with resistance in any way the oppressed see fit.

Physical oppression I can agree with you on, but words? What would you have? Prison for the guy who calls someone "nigger"? How about for the black guy who calls me "cracker"? Or does that not count?


Sounds like someone who isn't impacted by the racist, sexist, homophobic behavior of others.

I'm not impacted by words because I choose not to be. If others choose differently, that is their business.



Just let people continue being oppressive, it's okay.

Naughty naughty... you're putting words into my mouth. I never said anything about oppression being OK. Calilng Mr. Rodrigues down the hall a "spic" doesn't constitute oppression. It just makes the caller a little asshole, rom a certain point of view.


Sometimes your immediate assumption of someone's gender is actually off the mark. People who are genderqueer prefer gender neutral pronouns such as "they."

Mine? Um... first, I'm not sure what you're talking about. Must have lost the context. Second, may I remind you of your grammar: people do not have "gender", they have "sex". Only nouns have gender. English lesson for the day is now over. :)

[zerozerozerominusone]

No. ["Nigger] ss not just another word.

If it isn't to you, that is fine. Whatever floats your boat. For me, it is just another sound. That doesn't mean it cannot have a nasty meaning asssociated with it, but so what? It still cannot hurt anyone who refuses to allow it to hurt them. If a stranger pulls a gun and venilates you, then you will really be hurt, and then you will be wishing like hell they'd just called you a "nigger" or some such because that shit won't kill you the way the bullet will.


Its a word that has facilitated the lynching, beating and terrorizing of an entire population of people.

And if it hadn't, some other word would have. Oh, if only I could go back in time and replace "nigger" with "god" or "angel". What a wrench that would have tossed into the works! :)


As someone who is white, I refuse to use that language even during political conversations. I will not continue to uphold the mentality that white people can utter that word as long as its safely held within the constraints of certain dialogues. I have no right to say that word.

OK. I, on the other hand, reserve every right to use that word in any way I please. Nothing special there, as I reserve the same right for every other world in existence, out of existence, or yet to come into existence. :) Words do not frighten me.



If you read a little more carefully, you'd notice that I said specifically it doesn't hurt my feelings. I'll just discount this argument completely seeing as its built on a false premise.

Well I'll be a son of a.... *****... Bwaaaa haa haa haa....

I completely misread what you wrote. My apologies. I thought you wrote that such words hurt your feelings. OK, well, I stand corrected on that point. Sorry for the confusion.


It would probably be more effective to tell me why it's a stretch than just tell me that it's a stretch. Am I supposed to just take your assertion as fact? And of course, because you don't see it that way, I'm wrong. You must represent the entire population, right? Androcentrism at its best.

I didn't say you were wrong. I just said that the generalization was a stretch. It is because not all people take it the same way that you do. I am just one example.


Women are called *****es when they don't fit the stereotypes of femininity. Women who are outspoken, direct, assertive, successful, insubordinate and empowered are called *****es. If we speak our minds, we're nagging *****es. If we refuse to submit, we're headstrong *****es. Calling a woman a ***** is the easiest way to invalidate and blow off everything she is saying. It's avoidance at its best.

Once again you appear to make the error of believing that anyone can invalidate your feelings without your consent. I don't give a rat's ass what anyone calls me. I may not like it, but I sure as hell am not going to get in a bunch over it, though I may take careful note in case of a pending physical situation. Now, let me be clear that this does not allow for people invading the personal physical space of others. For example, I would not cotton to anyone following someone else around town and calling her "*****" (or whatever), as that becomes physical hassassment. Expressing one's opinions does not extend to invasions of personal space. For example, if someone wishes to get all verbally bellicose with me, they'd best remain at least an arm's length from my person. If they invade that space, they will notified about it.


No. No, no, no, no. Can I say it more? No, I don't. We live in a rape culture.

Not quite following you. Rape culture? How do you mean this?



It can be. Nazi's who are afraid to walk down the street unless they're no longer Nazi's are safe Nazi's.

And that's as fucked as anything you can name. Even the NAZI is entitled to his opinion without fear of retaliation. Anything less is hypocrisy.



When people act oppressively, either verbally or through physical threat, they are infringing on my freedom to navigate the world without fear and with autonomy and self-determination.

Agreed on the physical threat part, but not the verbal. Believe it if you will, but be aware that you limit and hobble yourself by placing yourself at the mercy of others. If you think for a minute that people will stop being people just because you want them to, you're fooling yourself. Some people are cool - some aren't. That's life. My suggestion to you, and I mean this very seriously, is to be more the master of your own life. Learn to recognize a true threat and dispense with all the rest. Thirtyfive years of martial arts has taught me the value of this basic tenet. Words are never a threat, though they may be harbingers of real threats. That is why I say be grateful when someone is so stupid as to give his intentions away so freely to you. I doesn't make it pleasant, but it makes you smarter. Better that than a knife in the back when you are not expecting it.

Be more powerful. Put yourself outside "their" reach. Most often people uttering such words in such ways are looking for validation through your response. Deny them their dose of self-importance. That will drive them nuts. Walk away (but keep they eyes in the back of your head wide open). That is personal power.


Therefore, if they don't stop on their own accord, well. That's their choice. It will be met with resistance in any way the oppressed see fit.

Physical oppression I can agree with you on, but words? What would you have? Prison for the guy who calls someone "nigger"? How about for the black guy who calls me "cracker"? Or does that not count?


Sounds like someone who isn't impacted by the racist, sexist, homophobic behavior of others.

I'm not impacted by words because I choose not to be. If others choose differently, that is their business.



Just let people continue being oppressive, it's okay.

Naughty naughty... you're putting words into my mouth. I never said anything about oppression being OK. Calling Mr. Rodrigues down the hall a "spic" doesn't constitute oppression. It just makes the caller a little asshole, from a certain point of view.


Sometimes your immediate assumption of someone's gender is actually off the mark. People who are genderqueer prefer gender neutral pronouns such as "they."

Mine? Um... first, I'm not sure what you're talking about. Must have lost the context. Second, may I remind you of your grammar: people do not have "gender", they have "sex". Only nouns have gender. English lesson for the day is now over. :)

[zerozerozerominusone]

I happen to be a lowly, raging nigger myself. The word "nigger" in particular doesn't offend me. But I empathize with those who would be offended by that very word. You say "offend" means "to attack in a material fashion." This is true, but it can also mean "to cause anger, displeasure or to annoy". The word "nigger" happens to be "offensive" to, you might say, overly sensitive negroes because it causes them displeasure. Hence, it would not be incorrect to say that the word is offensive.

What you say is materially true, but it doesn't have to be. My pointin all of this discourse is that people have choices in how to respond to such things, and they make those choices every day. And I might add that many people choose poorly, IMO. But that's just the way I see it. Others see it differently. I'm not a fan of using "nigger" in the archetyical pejorative way. I don't get on people for shit they cannot help, such as how they look (grooming aside, I suppose). But I may get all over them for their behaviors and attitudes because those are chosen... well, at least in large part they are, but let us not iget into a discussion of cognitive psychology.

I don't care if someone calls me "cracker" or some such. The only thing I take exception to is the hypocrisy. I am not a real big fan of hypocrites.


Of course, my dictionary whence I derived the meaning of "offend" may be slighty bias because it was most likely written by a bunch of politically correct hooked nosed hymies.;)

Ach! Mein Gott! Ich bin so fucking offended!! Boo hooty hoo hoo hoo...

Quick, my lawyer... I smell money... lots and lots of it...