offensive stereotyping

[Au Naturel]

That was a response to autism Dad about PC stuff. I agree with him about rejecting that the world is becoming too PC and I fail to understand how my post related to you. Are you seriously telling me you are fine with people saying the N word? Just because people don't get offended by the word doesn't make it right or not racist.

I object to political correctness in general. Political correctness isn't about the n-word. That has been considered a vile and obscene word my entire life. (And that may be part of its allure to some.) What I object to is your stereotyping people who object to political correctness as being racists and whatever other vile words you care to call them.

Political correctness is the notion that one can effect political ends by attempting to control what ideas and words are allowed to be expressed in language. Both the far right and the far left have their own versions of how they would constrict free speech. The left is far more effective at it. Looking for reasons to be insulted is almost a hobby.

"Lassie" is in no way a slur. I don't even see a logical path to getting a slur out of it. To fabricate one is political correctness run amok.

No more comment on this by me. This discussion would belong in the political forum and I have no interest there.

 

[Au Naturel]

If you are against homosexuality or gay marriages, that would be homophobia.

But if someone is just assuming you are against homosexuality just because you are Christian, they are just making that false assumption about you and I wouldn't call it this PC, just them being an idiot. Jumping to that conclusion about you just because you are Christian.

Kind of reminds me when a teacher took out the word Gay out of "deck the halls" and people told me online, "that wasn't being PC, that was her being an idiot" when I thought there was a war on Christmas and PC had taken over it so I posted a source to that story.

I'd say you are a homophobe only if you have an irrational fear of homosexuals or homosexuality. "Love the sinner but hate the sin" is not a phobia, it is a religious doctrine. One does not need to be afraid to follow it. But, that is how language gets played with.

Not all religions consider homosexuality a sin. Nor do all Christian denominations. But what typically happens with any group of advocates is that it is easier to find the more extreme cases and then stereotype a single broad group as "the enemy" than it is to see a multiplicity of different groups within the broader catagory. Suggesting that you look at everyone in those various groups as unique individuals will get you outright hostility.

Think of the popular stereotype of autism - pushed by a particular "autism advocacy group." (Sinister, a puzzle, destroys marriages and families, severe disability, parents should go into mourning at the diagnosis.) Compare it to, "See one autistic person and you've seen one autistic person." which is much closer to the truth but doesn't grab contributors.

Advocacy groups usually go for the most extreme case and most dire consequences and then present it as the typical case.

 

[Pappy Boyington]

I reject the idea that the world is becoming too "PC" (politically correct). To me, what is happening is we are uprooting the horrible terms and expressions that we have all grown up with (sometimes for generations) that hold no real meaning for us, but are and WERE meant to be insulting and divisive when originally implemented. Take for instance saying, "God bless you," when someone sneezes. On its face, there's nothing wrong with that, but it was originally a moniker for "I hope you don't die from that disease you obviously have." Kind of dark... And, there's nothing wrong with re-evaluating your language and idioms to root out that which is offensive and has been used offensively in the past. The only reason is uncomfortable now is because it seems normal to us that these exist and we have all used them, not understanding their terrible origins. Unbeknownst to us, we have been regurgitating slanderous, sometimes racist, phrases. Wouldn't any rational person say, "Wow, I had no idea. I'll stop doing that because to continue to do it knowing what I know makes me a jerk." I think that's all this is: Spring Cleaning of our language. Which is a good thing. As an example: I didn't know that "Jay Walking" was an offensive term. But it was used to demean someone who lacks sophistication of city ways. But that was the motus operandi of people in the late 19th Century and early 20th Century. They had a habit of using pejorative terms as descriptors instead of just being a bit more professional. We are in a more sophisticated society and we should reflect that in our mannerisms, speech, language and actions. That's all.

You obviously drank the kool-aide of post-modernist critical theory.

This "Spring Cleaning" of the language you advocate is straight out of 1984.

 

[Au Naturel]

Orwell is no longer required reading in school.

LOL! Didn't you know that when you remove hate words from the language, the feelings behind it cease to exist? Like "Lassie?"

 

[Kit]

Last I heard, Lassie is a dog and a TV show.

 

[Au Naturel]

Last I heard, Lassie is a dog and a TV show.

It is also considered a racial/ethnic/gender slur by someone. Because of that, I couldn't pick it as the answer to a secret question, "What is your first dog's name?" that I needed to set up for a financial institution.

 

[Pappy Boyington]

Orwell is no longer required reading in school.

LOL! Didn't you know that when you remove hate words from the language, the feelings behind it cease to exist? Like "Lassie?"

LOL!! That's what the dictatorship of Oceana thought and also what the post-modernists think. They aren't 100% wrong, there is a relationship between language and thoughts but they take it to the extreme, basically claiming that reality is primarily socially constructed.

Of course the problem here is that the Critical Race theorists ultimately see everything as racist so eventually we will need to ban the whole English language.