Please explain what you mean by "politically correct junk".

What? Like respecting other human beings?



Or just someone who believes that humans should respect one another. Being mindful of other people's feelings does not mean that one wants to stop calling the Founding Fathers, Fathers.



And you would be incorrect, as far as I can tell. A pejorative is a certain sort of insult.



It is not exactly the same, given that there are two different words being used, however those words may be used in insulting ways with "gay" including the meaning of "idiot" depending upon context.



I'd say it isn't too smart to speak with the intent to anger in the first place.

You dont need PC to respect other humans, you only need to be respectfull.

I agree.

But political correctness is, by and large, the act of censoring speech in order to be respectful of others.

I know what you're saying DT, but I don't even think most acts of political correctness are even as serious as censoring - they're usually simply reminders, or advice, that certain words cause offence.

In the example of the advert Bonaventurian moans about in the OP, for example, the word 'gay' isn't being censored - it's just being pointed out that it can cause offence. Presumably the decision to continue or desist using the word as a slur remains in the hands (mouths) of those that wish to use it as such - it's just that now they take that decision on advice from someone who has made it clear they don't approve.

To talk about a hypothetical situation, I might have a friend who uses the word "sambo" when referring to people with dark skin. I might find this a bit uncomfortable and tell him I don't like the way he uses the word. This might be deemed politically correct of me - but I don't think it's censoring. He's free to continue using it - and I'm free to hang about with people who don't use racist terminology with such levity.

To counter Leonard's point though, I think it would be wimpy of me to just pretend I don't mind the word and silently lose respect for my friend - rather than letting him know I don't like it in the hope of solving the problem.

Censor is not always as strong as enforced censorship. There is also self censorship, which would be political correctness in practice, or censorship by social pressure, such as telling your friend you do not like the term "sambo".

You wouldn't have to censor things if people stopped caring about PC junk. And I call it junk because there's more to being respectful than not saying certain words. I respect everyone I meet (or at least try to). Do you honestly think calling someone gay is as bad as beating someone up for being gay? Well, pejoratives are disrespectful, but the real problem is that you can't say them without being offensive because people have stolen and changed the meaning of that word to mean something disrespectful! Honestly, few people on this world are truly nice, and you should look past being called some name and be glad you aren't being beaten and mugged in an alley. There's some meaning to the phrase "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me." Maybe nobody else understands coming from different backgrounds, but there is no harm in using a pejorative as its original meaning. We live in a malevolent world, DT. "political correctness is, by and large, the act of censoring speech in order to be respectful of others" because people would otherwise use pejoratives constantly, but if someone called me a queer-ass homo, I'd turn the other cheek. Also, Not being a wimp gets you killed or injured. By being politically correct, you are really just substituting "offensive" words with ones that have the same meaning, they are meant to sound fancy in order to not offend people. You can't say "You're awfully gay today, Ted!" and try to compliment someone because you would be offensive to them. See, I can't use words the way they are meant to, because the same people who are 'politically correct' make them have an offensive meaning in order to make more words that sound politically correct. In order to not offend people, I'm expected to say things like "ethnically diverse" or "financially challenged", or "physically challenged" when they are really more offensive and derogatory. These terms single out the subject by offering a supposedly more "respectful" term which instead makes them feel like they are atypical and different. PC words give labels to people who don't need them. Also, by slapping on "challenged" to the end of a word, doesn't it also offend people? Handicapped people should be proud to live without a limb that other people take for granted, and still thrive and often do as well as people without a handicap.

Also, the 'Founding Fathers' gave us the right of free speech. How would they have anything to do with political correctness when it infringes on that sacred right that they gave us? Honestly, they believed that we were all civil people, who knew better than to take advantage of that right to say offensive things, and to change the meanings of words to make them offensive.

H.A. Silverglate of the University of Pennsylvania connects political correctness to the Marxist Philosopher Herbert Marcuse's ideology stating that freedom of speech is oppressive. Such an ideology is harmful to our fair country, where we are expected to be polite, and by being polite we should get the right to free speech. Are you really against someone's right to speak their mind? Or do you have to keep your thoughts bottled up until you break down?

Also, political correctness only provides awkward euphemisms for real words and language. Political correctness separates our diverse people who should be proud into 'Caucasians' and 'People of Ethnically Diverse background'. I've even heard someone use "ethnically challenged" at a store.

Also, remember that words once considered offensive like 'bloody' can now be freely uttered on radio, and children may be within an earshot anyway. Seriously, people who live in the past still consider that to be offensive. They live in the past, they find some currently offensive words to not be offensive at all. Some words in English would be considered severely offensive to people in France, Italy, etc.

Freedom of expression is not freedom of oppression. What do you think of all of the books burned, authors fined, and in some countries authors and artists stoned, hung, and burned to death for using politically incorrect words or offensive themes? To think they had a chance... Anyway, tools such as Websense constantly censor sites for using offensive language that isn't entirely nice but is protected by the Constitution like maddox.xmission.com while millions of porn sites remain undetected.

Everyone deserves respect, but nobody gives respect. Do you think PC will change people's minds? We have to change their point of view, but it will never happen. There are always people who have an intense hatred for other groups. It doesn't help to single out different people and put them in groups. Parents who object to offensive television programs can always switch the channel or choose another show. Unfortunately, parental supervision is lacking in many households. If you don't want your kids to watch "garbage", then why do you stand aside and sit on your self-absorbed rear while the world is spinning and television shows with vulgar language are still being broadcasted? Do something for god's (or atheism's) sake! You can't expect everything to be peachy and ok. If you are offended, do something. Go away from what's offending you. Turn off the television and parent your children!

Also, by speaking with the intent to anger by calling someone a peabrained dolt, the offended person must acknowledge that they have a restricted vocabulary and therefore are a dolt (which I'm using as a word to describe someone with a small vocabulary).

If you believe the meaning of gay is actually idiot, then you are acknowledging that it is a pejorative. And by acknowledging that it is one, you also confirm that there are post-pejorative words like bloody. Do we censor 'bloody' because it was once offensive (and is still offensive to a small amount of people)? No. Why aren't there PC alternatives for those kinds of words? Because PC is flawed. You should be respecting people in the first place without demeaning them by using PC words. They are demeaning, ask someone who fits into a PC category, they'll either tell you they don't care about it, or they'll say something like that it isn't much different than the type of word that it's attempting to cover up.

Like Bona said, a pizza doesn't yum. You can't change the meaning of words. It is kind of paradoxical to be politically correct, and many would say it is unconstitutional. In conclusion, political correctness does not have a point. If you say it does, you are acknowledging how demeaning it is. It IS demeaning. People don't like being singled out of a crowd.


On a more personal note, a disabled friend of mine dislikes how people try to be overly nice to him cause he's in a wheelchair. He is not special. His take on the PC term "physically challenged:"

"It's offensive in the sense that it assumes i'm challenged:thats-enough:. I live a healthy and happy life, and I don't face any challenges because i'm in a wheelchair."
______________________________________________________________

To add on, PC promotes everyone to be the same. It is trying to kill being yourself. Not everyone is equal. There are poor homeless people and multi-billionaires. If everyone were equal, criminals would be equal. If you say poor people are inclined to be criminals, you are promoting a stereotype. There would still be crime and hate. A classless society is Communism. We all know how terrible it is to live under communism, and my parents and grandparents struggled to flee their home countries to avoid it. I am proud to be unique, and PC is trying to strip that quality away from me.

---------- Post added 08-01-2009 at 09:56 PM ----------

I won't provide any more of an argument because I've shown what PC really is and does.

Have you ever honestly seen someone coerce anyone else into using such language?

A reason these terms tend to get thrown into the pot with things like "please don't use the word sambo to refer to black people" is not that they are part of the same drive - but that they are sometimes used together in governmental or professional directives.

Within the professional arena suggesting someone use a phrase like "visually impaired" when they might say "blind" is that policies and services designed to cover people with a variety of problems to do with sight - not just out and out blindness - are often otherwise marketed as "for the blind".

So within organisations a directive to use "visually impaired" is not issued in order to seem inoffensive - but to market the policy or service to the right set of people - those who have some difficulty seeing, ranging in severity from slight impairments to actual blindness.

I mean you say "I'm expected to use terms like 'ethnically diverse'" - well, what would you rather be saying in that context and is anyone actually stopping you?

Your friend is happy with certain terms and uncomfortable with others. This is what you tend to get with gestalts - differences of opinion. If your friend were to suggest his own preferred term you would presumably not look upon it as some sort of coercive measure - though that's what it would be. Another wheelchair user might similarly claim that they are not "dis"abled - as they feel they face no challenges because they are in a wheelchair.

They're in denial of course, but if that gets them through the night what of it?

Presumably you're still feel free to call your friend "physically challenged" if you so desire - you just do it now knowing that he doesn't care for the term and might be irritated by it.

Well, that's all PC is - just pointing out that some terms you may not feel are irritating can be - it's just that PC is the voice of the gestalt on the matter, not the individual.

It's a modern conception of ettiquette, in other words. Now you may not like ettiquette - that's fine, I doubt anyone will force it on you, but it's there and you can't expect to navigate all aspects of society if you ignore it. It just isn't the oppressive big brother you're attempting to portray it as, it's a base measure of our ever-shifting manners.

What would he rather be referred to as? "Wheelchair user"? "Someone who isn't as good at walking as other people"? These expressions would be equally vapid.

I obviously don't know what it's like round your way, but I think there's a big difference between words or phrases advised for those who work in certain professional capacities - which you seem to be complaining about - and reminders or advice not to use certain words, or certain words in a particular context, for fear of giving offence. In Belfast I have seen plenty of drives to promote Good Relations between Protestants and catholics that include the effictive banning of certain slurs - but I've never seen anyone going "you ought to call wheelchair users 'physically challenged'" unless there has been a professional reason behind it.

Like saying "I don't want you doing that near my kids" or "I don't like it when you refer to my sister as a whore"?


It'd be great if we could all write our own reviews wouldn't it? But seeing as I've won this debate I'll say no more about it.

I'll posit a hypothesis: Nobody who uses phrases like "PC junk" has thought about the issue of inclusive and non-offensive language with any depth of consideration. Phrases like "PC junk" are without fail indicators of a lack of consideration.

The way you speak will not change what you think about people =)

I dont think so, rather, they are indicators of that the person in question has an extremelly negative opinion about the subject at hand.

Edit: On a second though, it depends of what you mean with "lack of consideration" here.

(Don't insult my bad English or grammar, it's not my first language.)
Being politically correct is just as offensive as saying something insulting towards another person.

"Like saying "I don't want you doing that near my kids" or "I don't like it when you refer to my sister as a whore"?"
-Yes, exactly. But the point is that it would be dumb to respond if your sister was a whore, or if what the person was doing wasn't inappropriate or illegal.


"I'll posit a hypothesis: Nobody who uses phrases like "PC junk" has thought about the issue of inclusive and non-offensive language with any depth of consideration. Phrases like "PC junk" are without fail indicators of a lack of consideration."

Honestly, if PC junk is an indicator of "lack of consideration," then it is a fairly ironic one (oh, perhaps we need a new PC term for inconsiderate fools, add some more ingredients to the largest pot of irony in modern times). I've considered most of the points for political correctness, and thought they were just excuses to single out and group people. Before this thread, I was honestly a supporter of political correctness. Look at Bona's points. You can't keep denying that there are faults in political correctness. Obviously, if there are people for it and against it, it isn't perfect. It's a pitiful, poorly put together string of ideas that deals with pejoratives by creating synonyms that only sound less offensive. Some poor fool went to the trouble of trying not to insult people by making softer words with "less of an impact." Hey genius, it's the same thing. Why call someone a cripple when you can call them challenged. Hey, you've got a lot of negative Karma, why not make up for it by singling out someone different than you. You must not have read my post if you think i'm inconsiderate.

Go ahead, ask any disabled person if they like getting special treatment. I don't treat my friend like a baby and act like he is incapable of doing anything. It is impolite to treat people as if they were different. I don't tell my black coworkers that they are ethnically diverse, because I find that disrespectfull. They don't call me "white kid" because they find that disrespectfull. Also, just to throw it out there, I look white but I am a minority in this country. It doesn't make a difference, or maybe it does to you people. My family had to leave their cherished country because of people who wanted everything to be politically correct. Or politically the way they want it. I can't change my ethnic background, so get used to it.

Also, you know what's sad? That people have to change who they are just to get acceptance. You see these people in wheelchairs on tv, and when they're asked if they could change it so they can walk again, most of them say that they enjoy life more now that they're in a wheelchair. It gives them something to live for. I was watching some programme on a Saturday night, and this female-to-male transsexual scientist said that he was treated horribly for being a women. He found the males in his otherwise all male class to be oppressive. He became a man, and says that it's terrible the way we treat women, just as it's terrible the way they treat transsexuals, and minorities. I don't condone transsexuality, but I am saying that everyone deserves a little respect. Everyone deserves the same respect. I don't say that everyone is equal. Even I know that it's complete bull.. But I do say that everyone has to get the same respect, even kidnappers and murderers.

I do have consideration for other people, however I don't demean them and make them feel like children by referring to them in a politically correct manner! Anyway, the people who use pc language fall under a large group of people who aren't tagged with insulting PC phrases.

"What would he rather be referred to as? "Wheelchair user"? "Someone who isn't as good at walking as other people"? These expressions would be equally vapid."
-If you are going to refer to someone as wheelchair user, you have to know them enough to be sure that it won't trigger a negative response. You can't go around calling people you don't know "handicapped". You have to learn to respect other people's views before awkwardly calling them disabled. Also, the social stigma behind politically correct phrases is powerful enough that nobody would want to be called disabled. And yes, this social stigma is negative. There is no etiquette behind being nice, you just have to respect someone as you would respect a family member. Of course, someone with self-respect wouldn't like to be singled out from a group by being treated differently. Maybe someone who likes calling people challenged is Philosophically Challenged. Come on, a Marxist philosopher (who obviously got brainwashed into a set of oppressive ideas) thought the idea of free speech was oppressive (see above post). If you think free speech is oppressive, then you wouldn't be talking on a forum where you can say whatever you want about almost anything.

Think of it this way, if your coworker was a quadriplegic in a wheelchair, and you treated him differently and called him "physically challenged", would you treat him differently if he became your boss? Of course, if you were to be polite, you would never have treated him differently because he was in a wheelchair. That includes using politically correct terms. If you think i'm denying that this man is in a wheelchair, then you're denying that political correctness is no different than the words it tries to hide. Hiding offensive words won't make them go away. Teaching your children not to treat people differently because of race, religion, or gender is the only way to try to make the world a better place. Teaching your children that bad things don't exist, the world is full of nice, happy people, and that calling someone challenged is a good way of not offending them, then you are just blinding them from the truth. Violence exists, offensive words exist, and evil exists. Evil is a product of our good intentions that may not really be good, or bad intentions that we know are harmful. Just to make it clear, I don't use offensive language, and I don't use PC words either. I show people I care for them through accepting body language and nice gestures such as a nice "hello" or a handshake.

And haven't you heard the quote "People with good intentions still make mistakes". Maybe I invented that quote, but we aren't all perfect. Mental illness causes people to commit crimes, jealousy causes crimes of passion, and accidents cause people to be crippled. We can't control any of those. Then why isn't there a PC phrase for every person? I'd be allegorically or explanatorily challenged, because I can't seem to get people to trust me.

In Belfast, Protestants and Catholics continue to fight. They don't care much for each other. You know why? Because Ireland is divided. The citizens in Northern Ireland are against each other, and not just because of cruel words. There are murders, vandalism, damaging property, and fistfights. Hostility is caused when people who used to be neutral or allies use methods of discriminating each other. They used to be just plain "irish" but they started to segregate because of beliefs. Political correctness also segregates, like it or not. Catholic and Protestant both used to be pejoratives. If you see fighting in Belfast, you have political correctness to thank (maybe not just political correctness, but that is certainly one of the factors).

The world is malevolent, we are all rejects, and the best thing to do is to accept that, instead of blaming people who are against political correctness for starting it. Hey, you wouldn't like it if you were in a wheelchair. Would you like it if everyone was the same race, religion, height, weight, gender, and had the same level of intelligence? No. If you would, then that would be awful. What's the reason of being alive if you aren't unique? There is no reason. I've tried to explain my side of the story. Why not just toss out political correctness, let mean people be mean, and treat everyone as equals. Martin Luther King jr. would be turning 'round in his grave if he knew that blacks were being oppressed. Come on, you can still have some empathy. Just don't act like a fool thinking that certain people have special needs. Don't give designations to people who don't need them. Perhaps i'm being a little insolent, but you don't get attention for telling someone your personal opinions. There are other people who dislike political correctness as a whole. Also, don't speak of my friend, he's getting some special brace that will let him walk somewhat normally, only so self-righteous hypocrites stop narking on him for being in a wheelchair. I don't even mention the wheelchair, or even think about it unless I have to say "hey, here's your wheelchair," or something similar.

Well, i'll have to wrap up this post because there is a lag in my computer. Be sure to contradict my personal experiences and desecrate my ethnic background, which i'd like to keep private.

---------- Post added 08-04-2009 at 04:13 PM ----------

Being in a wheelchair is the way god planned it. Maybe he has some strange plans, but that's just it. Or if you're an atheist, it's the fault of evolution.

I find it hard to argue with someone who adopts so many seemingly contrary postions. In one breath you request that people not insult your English - yet in another you tell me it would be dumb to request that people refrain from calling my prostitute sister a whore (for the record she is an accountant, not a harlot, and your English is fine as far as I can tell, though I do wish you'd knock off the annoying bold text).

Firstly the example of suggesting people not call my sister a whore was raised as a counter example to your suggestion that people do something rather than just moaning - moaning is doing something! We are both doing it a lot in this thread - moaning about moaning is still moaning (and so is moaning about moaning about moaning, for that matter).

Even if she was a whore it would still be My Right to request that people refrain from banging on about it if it's getting me down or bored or upset or whatever - it's not that I can't stand up to the fact, it's just that I don't need reminding all the time. It's not "dumb" to ask people not to offend you.

If it is "dumb" to ask people not to offend you then I'm afraid it strikes me as double standards to ask people not to insult your english.

Do you see? You're trying to have your cake and eat it.

Only if you make the conceptual leap that it's some Orwellian measure to reduce language and obliterate concepts and frankness - which it isn't.

As far as I am aware, it has never been used to do this. People who don't like to mind their manners try to paint it that way - by saying things like the blackboard thing, or that "you have to call blind people 'visualy impaired' these days". Actual Stalinist cases of this sort hardly ever happen, if at all.

The only Actual case of political correctness I can see referred to in this thread (ie: a government sponsored or approved drive to get people to think about language differently) is the advert Bona moaned about - a polite reminder that using 'gay' to mean 'pathetic' might offend.

Again, I'm confused as to what your stance is - is it OK to remind people that certain attitudes might be perceived as offensive or not?

If so - I don't see where the argument lies.

If not - why are you so passionate about using certain words to describe certain people but not others.

I wouldn't refer to a black person as 'ethnically diverse' - not because it's particularly impolite as such but because it's innacurate. I wouldn't call them wog, nig-nog or sambo either - because it's clear to me that those words carry a bite that could provoke feelings of hurt.


That's an appalling twisting of Irish history which I suspect you concocted simply to make a point. I've lived in Belfast much of my adult life and this has barely any resemblance to what I've witnessed here or learned about the place.

The religious and class distinctions that roughly define the two communities have no easily distinguishable roots, and Ireland was never a united country enjoying peace as you seem to imply. Before Norman/English rule it was split into five warring kingdoms and after there was always tension between the native Irish and a nobility they saw (justly or not) as foreigners imposed upon them. Catholicism reached the shores of Ireland ahead of the Lutherans, but the Ulster shipwrights and linen manufacturers who made the North of Ireland a relative economic powerhouse had clan ties with Scottish Protestants before they even were Protestants - so no community can really claim to have 'been here first'.

How this translated into the modern day troubles between the Protestants and Catholics is a long story, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the adoption of politically correct labelling. By the twentieth century the Catholic community in Northern Ireland felt (with justification) that they were denied rights by a Gerrymandering and nepotistic Protestant administration. Civil rights demonstrations turned to violence as Protestants felt their hard-won right (as they saw it) to "a protestant state" was being taken from them.

The resulting violence was partially tribal, partially religious and partially a middle-class revolt - the Protestant bourgoisie trying to keep the Catholic proletariat 'in its place' and both sides being too quick to resort to bloodshed to try and meet their aims (in my opinion, of course).

Political correctness as I see it had nothing to do with igniting the troubles - they were a direct result of obvious inequalities between two groups of people - but it was a cornerstone of the Good Friday Agreement that effectively ended it. With proportional representation for Catholics in the police, Good relations legislation at the heart of council policy, equal opportunities legislation (including making the use of certain terms within the work environment a sackable offence) and other politically correct measures much of the hurt has been assuaged. The picture you paint of murders, vandals and fistfights hasn't quite disappeared - but it's much less representative of the situation here than it was 30 years ago. The subsequent trend has been a diminishment of hostilities and recognition of rights for both sides of the religious divide.

Parity of esteem is the object of PC - not uniformity of person.

Perhaps it depends of how truthfull one believes people should be. I personally believe that all should be truthfull, and all should, as well, understand that what others say, independently of whenever offensive or not, is the revelation of what they think. Learning what others think should be good, not bad, and one should not hate others for what they think.

"I find it hard to argue with someone who adopts so many seemingly contrary postions. In one breath you request that people not insult your English - yet in another you tell me it would be dumb to request that people refrain from calling my prostitute sister a whore (for the record she is an accountant, not a harlot, and your English is fine as far as I can tell, though I do wish you'd knock off the annoying bold text). "
:Not-Impressed:
-First off, I never stated that it would be dumb to request someone to use proper language. I stated that unless your sister were a whore, you have every right to request that someone please use more respectful terms. However, I don't see how this has any relation to political correctness, because using terms to make something not insulting is rather different than to request that someone not use insulting words in the first place. Next, I want to add that I use words in bold because you obviously can't emphasize words in type as you can in speaking. I may refrain from using them at your request if you find them rather annoying, but enough of that matter. Thirdly, I mention the English because nobody has mentioned it prior to then, so I point it out just in case. That is different than if someone called me a foreigner as an insult and then I explained it. Moreover, it is of importance to the subject being discussed, because it may be necessary to point out in case I don't sound right. You must give someone a chance to explain things before going ahead and mentioning something. As for the "contrary positions," the only position I take is that against political correctness. I did explain why I dislike it, but if I stated anything contradictory please point out exactly what I said and I can clarify.


"Again, I'm confused as to what your stance is - is it OK to remind people that certain attitudes might be perceived as offensive or not? "
:brickwall:
-You shouldn't need to remind people that their language is offensive as any intelligent person would know if they are saying something potentially insulting. On the other hand, you should reprimand someone if they do use this language, because not doing so would be like telling them that you condone vulgar language. Would it not be ok then for a handicapped person to tell someone that politically correct terms offend them? They can also ask simply not to mention the imparment right off the bat, so I don't see why there is any need to use something unoffensive or offensive, and that it shouldn't have been made a big deal. I have never condoned the use of offensive language but I do say that it's better to say that something offends you than to jump ahead and tell someone to use words they feel are no different than insults.


"The only Actual case of political correctness I can see referred to in this thread (ie: a government sponsored or approved drive to get people to think about language differently) is the advert Bona moaned about - a polite reminder that using 'gay' to mean 'pathetic' might offend."
:perplexed:
-It doesn't require mentioning actual cases to know that censorship and political correctness are issues in the modern day. Look around you, people are treated differently because of political correctness. Why is there a reason to perscribe PC alternatives to people? Why were vulgar terms for certain people developed in the first place? Issues that caused people to use offensive words for one another are no longer issues today.

"Parity of esteem is the object of PC - not uniformity of person. "
:listening:
Is that so? Then PC must be pretty unsucessful in making everyone feel equal. I don't feel equal to people who have been Americans for generations on end. You know why? Because I am not. I may be mostly equal as for political rights, but I'm treated like a European instead of an American by some of the people who know i'm the first American in my family. My parents are treated like scum by the government because they were immigrants. My father was subjected to 14 hours of interrogation in a New Jersey airport and a vicious background check, and was almost deported even though he entered the country absolutely legally. Speaking of legal, my mother, who always wanted to be a politician, can't become a senator or representative (despite being very qualified and intelligent in that profession) here because she was born outside of the country. PC doesn't soothe that wound. PC won't make racial profiling go away. It won't make people respect homosexuals or transvestites. They can't get married all around the world. My parents would have been killed if they had not went to America, though they are still disrespected here.


"That's an appalling twisting of Irish history which I suspect you concocted simply to make a point. I've lived in Belfast much of my adult life and this has barely any resemblance to what I've witnessed here or learned about the place."
:a-ok:
Alright, if it's peaceful in Ireland, why is there a negative growth rate? People are "appalled" by their government because it alienated Catholics. During those times, Catholics were discriminated in housing and employment. Political Correctness emerged decades before 1970. There are undoubtedly still people who loathe other religions. If the government discriminates once, it could happen again. However, it's really off-topic of me to talk about Ireland.

---------- Post added 08-05-2009 at 10:19 PM ----------

"In Belfast I have seen plenty of drives to promote Good Relations between Protestants and catholics that include the effictive banning of certain slurs..."
Well, that isn't a bad thing, but if they must ban slurs to keep Protestants and Catholics from scuffling, then it suggests that there is still dissent between the two, when you claim you don't see anything going on. You don't have to see disagreement to know it's there. It may be that it's not a big issue, but it's still there.

It's my right to request whatever I want - whether my sister is a whore or not.

Not so, it's the whole point of this thread - I refer you to the original post.

You are conflating all politically correct drives with a certain type of government speak, of the "we can't call people black anymore - we have to call them ethnically diverse".

1) This wasn't the object of the thread.

2) It hardly ever actually happens.

3) The only examples I can think of it actually happening are in order to properly delineate services - as I explained a few posts back.

If you have an Actual Example then give it so i can know what you're talking about - but an anecdotal remark made by a friend does not count.

Sure, you felt the need, just as if I were the brother of a prostitute I might feel the need to request that people not refer to her as a whore in my presence.

But some are more intelligent than others and those who aren't might make use of the occasional reminder.

Like the woman in the advert who reminds people that using the word 'gay' as a synonym for 'pathetic'?

Sure - though I repeat - actual examples of such govspeak hardly ever happen and were not the topic of this thread.


Like what happened to your parents?


OK, this is maybe the language barrier.

I said "the object of" and you took it that I was stating that an objective had been reached, is that so?

This wasn't my intention, in English saying that something carries an object of something else does not imply that such a thing is yet to occur - but that it is being strived for.

Do you understand?

So if I say "the object of using less CO2 is to reduce global warming" saying "but it's hotter than ever!" is moot, because it's assuming that just because a programme has an object it must either have worked or failed - whereas it could well be a process underway.


Would you rather they had parity of esteem?


I don't know what you mean, but let's say you mean - for example - population or economy. Either way it's a moot point because growth rate isn't a measure of peace - it's a measure of growth.

Declining rates of murder and violent crime are measures of peace, alongside signs of increased desirability and reduction in stress and other factors - which is what you see in Ulster.


It is still there - but it is there less than it was yesterday as part of a general trend lasting over a decade since the Good Friday Agreement.

"Would you rather they had parity of esteem?"
Parity of esteem doesn't come from political correctness, it comes from people who know when to shut their mouths about things and not be bigots to people different than them. Political correctness just points out that something is an issue, and that's not the point. You don't have to be overbearing about using better words, just not to use words at all. My parents are not equal in this country, alright? They can never be equal. They may be citizens, but they aren't people compared to Americans. They still deserve respect, though. Some don't give them respect, but none of them say "so you're a foreigner, eh?". Race, religion, and politics are the 'three deadly topics' that shouldn't be discussed in public. It doesn't take a smart person to know that you shouldn't point out someone's differences. People already know that they are in a wheelchair, you can see that.


"I said "the object of" and you took it that I was stating that an objective had been reached, is that so?"

:thats-enough:I know what you said, but the objective will never be reached. The way things are going, hate crime is on the rise. Political correctness does not cover unexpected things. I've been through enough years of (poor quality) American education to know if you are implying that an object has been reached. Hey, what does political correctness think of people suffering from Tourette's Syndrome? You can't tell them to say something nicer. Now I don't know if you're backing political correctness or if you're backing speaking your mind, but neither will help someone with an impairment. If people would teach their kids that certain words may not be uttered or not teach them the words to begin with, then maybe it wouldn't be a problem. PC isn't attacking the problem from its source. I have a good analogy: You don't uproot a tree by prodding at the trunk with a shovel, you dig down to the roots and remove it from the earth. You can't brush that aside. You and I may be in denial. Pulling a rope tethered to the wall won't make the wall move.


"OK, this is maybe(sic) the language barrier."

It isn't 'maybe' the language barrier. Don't you mean "This may be the language barrier?" Or, "This is the language barrier?"


"So if I say "the object of using less CO2 is to reduce global warming" saying "but it's hotter than ever!" is moot..."

Using less CO2 doesn't get rid of CO2 altogether. And CO2 occurs naturally, as well as being released by fires, cars, homes, minerals, etc. That's like saying we should get rid of fire, cars, homes, and minerals. It's also moot to say that global warming will go away forever. That's like saying inflation will go away forever by cutting spending and raising taxes. You can't not spend at all, or keep increasing the rate of taxes. You balance the budget and increase efficiency in things. And people aren't more disrespectful than ever, but expect it to rise in the next few years.


"Either way it's a moot point because growth rate isn't a measure of peace - it's a measure of growth."

True, but saying that population growth is negative is not moot because growth rate isn't a measure of peace. Emigration to Ireland is decreasing, it was decreasing, and the government is apparently not helping. If it is, then I don't see why people are leaving Ireland.

Yes it is - regard the OP. And this seems to be a state of affairs you're quite happy with.


Even if so, a shift in the gestalt attitude that is 10% or 25% or 2% nearer towards the objective is more desirable than the alternative.

Well I honestly was not.

I'm backing both consideration for others, parity of esteem in regards to race, sexual preferences, and so on, and speaking your mind about things that annoy you.

Therefore my intial reaction to someone who tics due to Tourette's might be to find it rather unsettling - but on learning that they have tourettes I would be inclined to be somewhat more lenient about things they say that I find offensive.


Same thing.

Well this is all news to me. What are you basing your info on?

There's a recession on, and Ireland is not faring as well as thr UK, so better economic opportunities elsewhere might draw some people away - I suspect.

However, do note that Ireland, as in the republic, isn't the site of the troubles between catholics and protestants. That would be in Ulster in the north, which remains part of the UK.

I'll keep my response short as this argument is dying and I have a seminar to get to.
"That would be in Ulster in the north, which remains part of the UK. "
Exactly. Ulster is the county which is the site of trouble. I apologize if I was saying Ireland (the Republic of) rather than Northern Ireland. Ulster is in the UK portion of the island Ireland.

"Well this is all news to me. What are you basing your info on?"
I didn't say that that was true. But what I said is not the reason it is moot. Again, I know Ireland is suffering as much as anyone else in this economy.

"Well I honestly was not. (on showing that an objective has been reached)"
I did not say you were. I say that I know the difference between those two.

"I would be inclined to be somewhat more lenient about things they say that I find offensive."
What? Not even politically correct about it? Can you even be politically correct with a person who has an illness and is not politically correct? Maybe you can, but then you can't correct them on their language, and by not doing that, then the person may greatly offend someone. If you don't correct them, then you aren't being entirely politically correct. If you correct them on their language, that contradicts the whole idea of political correctness.

"And this seems to be a state of affairs you're quite happy with."
I can't help but remain in this wretched country, Mr. Allen. My parents can't either, as my father recently got a promotion and is headed to New York. I have an education to complete here. For now, I have to remain here where we are treated worse. However, I'd be at ease here rather than at home because there is a higher quality of life and more reasonable laws. It's a tolerable evil that I prefer to that out where I come from.

"Yes it is - regard the OP. "
What's their incentive? A shift in the gestalt attitude, eh? What if it goes in the other direction, as it may very well be headed? Anyway, it isn't of much importance, as there are economic issues to be adressed. These issues fuel hate. Reward a man a little and he is thankful. Reward him too much and he won't be gratified, he will begin to hate. Hey, here's a quote by Pascal: "Too much and too little wine. Give him none, he cannot find truth; give him too much, the same." Change people's mindset before you make them respect others. A man with no regard for others is a man with no self-respect. Another one by Pascal about political correctness and on thoughts of others: "To call a king a prince is pleasing, because it diminishes his rank." Enough, from now on i'll stick to my own analogies and allegories. I'll have to wrap it up then.