AT LAST....PC defined

Nems wrote:

heavenlyfatheryetagain wrote:
not remotely, my colour does not define who I am, the very concept of trying to control peoples thought is very dangerous, what comes next a daily tablet so everyone is a zombie...

If people disagree with something that should be their right... as long as they are not violent about it...

I disagree with gays but I do not want them harmed...

Well as a person cannot change their sexuality anymore than you can change your skin colour disagreeing with it is ...well pointless really.
I would have thought that the patronising attitude of the PC brigade is the offensive thing.

nicko wrote:I BET HE CALLS THEM N----S UNDER HIS BREATH.

veya_victaous wrote:

victorismyhero wrote:

including religious extremists, and abusers and ........

of course you have stopped "bigotry" spreading.....and introduced in its stead "grooming gangs", bombers, and discontent....

good swap....

at least be honest....what you REALLY want (you as in the wet letteuce lefty camp) is to prevent all and ANY discussion/criticism of your "dream world utopia"

Like Merkel you want to dictate to all that "YOUR" way is the ONLY right way and the rest of us can "suck it up"...regardless

doubtless when Germany subsides beneath the morass of humanity invading it at the moment.....you will blame the german people for not being "welcoming " enough...or some other such nonsense, when the truth is Merkel embarked on a project , doomed from the start by lack of thought, lack of concensus and lack of consultation....

Funny You are demanding All Minorities 'suck it up' when it come to shitty treatment they get by the Anglo Majority, then Are whinging and crying about begin told to 'Suck it up' and stop the shitty treatment

erm I think the shitty treatment the syrians are getting is at the hands of other than this mythical "Anglo majority" oh how the lefties love to fudge and twist

and them some bullshit about grooming gang sorry to break it too you but you already had plenty of Peados in British PARLIAMENT. Statically the British Anglo is Still one of the most likely to be peados

that is irrelevent.....we have MORE now....

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

gelico again wrote:



zack how do you feel about words being changed,,,,I'm not talking n---er, poof etc as being offensive

I meant more of what vic was saying

banning of golligwog
use of the word ''impaired'' which could cover a whole range of issues
banning of nursery rhymes
changing blackboard to chalkboard

etc etc

do you think that has helped?

Those terms are a joke.

The use blackboard-chalkboard terms were debated was debated when I was a kid. I remember we as kids thought it was ridiculous. "What next, changing Ba-ba Black Sheep?", was the common response.

Even words like n---er and Paki - those words in itself are not offensive by themselves. It's context and intent. Banning words is not going to change people's intent.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

gelico again wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

What a hysterical response.

Ask your question in a calm tone and I will consider answering.  

If you don't have the self control to do that, don't bother. Go have a wank instead.

zack how do you feel about words being changed,,,,I'm not talking n---er, poof etc as being offensive

I meant more of what vic was saying

banning of golligwog
use of the word ''impaired'' which could cover a whole range of issues
banning of nursery rhymes
changing blackboard to chalkboard

etc etc

do you think that has helped?

Those terms are a joke.

The use blackboard-chalkboard terms were debated was debated when I was a kid. I remember we as kids thought it was ridiculous. "What next, changing Ba-ba Black Sheep?", was the common response.

Even words like n---er and Paki - those words in itself are not offensive by themselves. It's context and intent. Banning words is not going to change people's intent.

victorismyhero wrote:what do we note from tis thread

firstly the PC brigade have NO sense of humour.....

i mean...seriously  pick a piece of sh*t up by the clean end......

but thay are far too superior to have the piss taken

welcome to the drear humourless existance of the leftie liberalist

Secondly

have you all noticed something

we are ALL too scared to use the word Ni66er out loud.....EVEN IF ONLY DISCUSSING THAT WORD.... instead we resort to a "masked" form or other    Progress my arse.....

what does THAT tell you about the corrupt pervasiveness of PC?????

victorismyhero wrote:what do we note from tis thread

firstly the PC brigade have NO sense of humour.....

i mean...seriously  pick a piece of sh*t up by the clean end......

but thay are far too superior to have the piss taken

welcome to the drear humourless existance of the leftie liberalist

Secondly

have you all noticed something

we are ALL too scared to use the word Ni66er out loud.....EVEN IF ONLY DISCUSSING THAT WORD.... instead we resort to a "masked" form or other    Progress my arse.....

what does THAT tell you about the corrupt pervasiveness of PC?????

eddie wrote:Vic I use the word n---er all the time - with black mates - it's a joke among us. They offer me "cops of tea" all the time saying "ain't it time for a cuppa, you know you whites love a cuppa!"

Colour is nothing to us, religion nothing, class nothing

We are just people and we speak as we find and say what we see.

HOWEVER!

It is a word (that one in particular) that has horrible historical connotations.
We use it as a joke but I understand it's considered  harsh and horrid so I would never say it to hurt someone.

Cuchulain wrote:

victorismyhero wrote:what do we note from tis thread

firstly the PC brigade have NO sense of humour.....

i mean...seriously  pick a piece of sh*t up by the clean end......

but thay are far too superior to have the piss taken

welcome to the drear humourless existance of the leftie liberalist

Secondly

have you all noticed something

we are ALL too scared to use the word Ni66er out loud.....EVEN IF ONLY DISCUSSING THAT WORD.... instead we resort to a "masked" form or other    Progress my arse.....

what does THAT tell you about the corrupt pervasiveness of PC?????

The only thing that is hilarious is how grown man can get so worked up over something so trivial it hardly effects of which only seeks to obtain equality for people.
And no matter how many times you throw your dummy out over this the reality it has influenced to the younger generation and for the better. You seem to think its a great big deal to use offensive words.

Wow, can something give Victor 10 credits, so he can put on his wallchart please.
The sad fact is you would not even want to seek using many of these words if not for where someone is saying its not polite to do so. So basically asking some to show some manners towards groups of people is like telling a child they cannot have any chocolate and they have a tantrum.

Nobody is denying you the right to say what you like at the end of the day and you can continue to do so, but the long term effect is undeniable, where people of the younger generation are seeing more and more the poor effects such prejudice rhetoric has towards groups of others.

So enjoy your moment, like anything it will not last

victorismyhero wrote:

eddie wrote:Vic I use the word n---er all the time - with black mates - it's a joke among us. They offer me "cops of tea" all the time saying "ain't it time for a cuppa, you know you whites love a cuppa!"

Colour is nothing to us, religion nothing, class nothing

We are just people and we speak as we find and say what we see.

HOWEVER!

It is a word (that one in particular) that has horrible historical connotations.
We use it as a joke but I understand it's considered  harsh and horrid so I would never say it to hurt someone.

yes eddie all thats true...BUT

when folks are so scared that they dare not even write the word they are discussing, but instead resort to (in fact quite childish) "masking" in order to avoid censure from the PC brigade
then there is something seriously wrong

victorismyhero wrote:

eddie wrote:Vic I use the word n---er all the time - with black mates - it's a joke among us. They offer me "cops of tea" all the time saying "ain't it time for a cuppa, you know you whites love a cuppa!"

Colour is nothing to us, religion nothing, class nothing

We are just people and we speak as we find and say what we see.

HOWEVER!

It is a word (that one in particular) that has horrible historical connotations.
We use it as a joke but I understand it's considered  harsh and horrid so I would never say it to hurt someone.

yes eddie all thats true...BUT

when folks are so scared that they dare not even write the word they are discussing, but instead resort to (in fact quite childish) "masking" in order to avoid censure from the PC brigade
then there is something seriously wrong

victorismyhero wrote:

eddie wrote:Vic I use the word n---er all the time - with black mates - it's a joke among us. They offer me "cops of tea" all the time saying "ain't it time for a cuppa, you know you whites love a cuppa!"

Colour is nothing to us, religion nothing, class nothing

We are just people and we speak as we find and say what we see.

HOWEVER!

It is a word (that one in particular) that has horrible historical connotations.
We use it as a joke but I understand it's considered  harsh and horrid so I would never say it to hurt someone.

yes eddie all thats true...BUT

when folks are so scared that they dare not even write the word they are discussing, but instead resort to (in fact quite childish) "masking" in order to avoid censure from the PC brigade
then there is something seriously wrong

victorismyhero wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:


The only thing that is hilarious is how grown man can get so worked up over something so trivial it hardly effects of which only seeks to obtain equality for people.
And no matter how many times you throw your dummy out over this the reality it has influenced to the younger generation and for the better. You seem to think its a great big deal to use offensive words.

Wow, can something give Victor 10 credits, so he can put on his wallchart please.
The sad fact is you would not even want to seek using many of these words if not for where someone is saying its not polite to do so. So basically asking some to show some manners towards groups of people is like telling a child they cannot have any chocolate and they have a tantrum.

Nobody is denying you the right to say what you like at the end of the day and you can continue to do so, but the long term effect is undeniable, where people of the younger generation are seeing more and more the poor effects such prejudice rhetoric has towards groups of others.

So enjoy your moment, like anything it will not last

the above is an advert for the nanny state

Raggamuffin wrote:

victorismyhero wrote:

yes eddie all thats true...BUT

when folks are so scared that they dare not even write the word they are discussing, but instead resort to (in fact quite childish) "masking" in order to avoid censure from the PC brigade
then there is something seriously wrong

The N word has actually been filtered here by admin.

victorismyhero wrote:the point dear boy is that its pointless....

the bigoty is there...alive and well and just as widespred.....just a little more subtle....and more underground...and all the more bigoted for it.....

you really dont like the R/W (as you seem to think) victor do you.....

and yet YOU and the rest of the LLA are the R/W's biggest recruiters.....

just like corbyn will prove to be the tories best ever friend


get off your high horse....YOUR way will lead only to further fragmentation....and you (espcially YOU didge) know where THAT will lead....

Ben_Reilly wrote:I think people must be more sensitive in the UK ... here, black people are fine with being called black, deaf people call themselves deaf, blind people blind, etc.

eddie wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:I think people must be more sensitive in the UK ... here, black people are fine with being called black, deaf people call themselves deaf, blind people blind, etc.

Yes Ben, the PEOPLE are okay with it.
The PC brigade decided to make up a rule which said we must be offended by it.

Cuchulain wrote:

victorismyhero wrote:the point dear boy is that its pointless....

the bigoty is there...alive and well and just as widespred.....just a little more subtle....and more underground...and all the more bigoted for it.....

you really dont like the R/W (as you seem to think) victor do you.....

and yet YOU and the rest of the LLA are the R/W's biggest recruiters.....

just like corbyn will prove to be the tories best ever friend


get off your high horse....YOUR way will lead only to further fragmentation....and you (espcially YOU didge) know where THAT will lead....

The point is Grumpy it has been very effective that has seen opinions help change over time.

yah reckon well there are non so blind....

The more it has been brought home, the more society progresses positively

progress......where??

I suggest you collect your dummies off the floor as what real harm is being done?

In the context of the last couple of posts.....if you cant see the harm then you are being wilfully blind

"when the harper is silenced all men should listen the more carefully"

Only the one you are trying to create.

victorismyhero wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:


The point is Grumpy it has been very effective that has seen opinions help change over time.

yah reckon   well there are non so blind....

The more it has been brought home, the more society progresses positively

progress......where??

I suggest you collect your dummies off the floor as what real harm is being done?

In the context of the last couple of posts.....if you cant see the harm then you are being wilfully blind

"when the harper is silenced all men should listen the more carefully"

Only the one you are trying to create.

victorismyhero wrote:sigh...you are missing the point...again.....

If rational discussion of a word (whatever it may be) is stifled because people dare not openly refer to the word in question then there is a serious problem....and THAT problem lies in society...and in particular within that sector of society that condones such censorship on any grounds...regardless


THAT is the "negative side" of PC.....

like I said what next....


book burnings?

Cuchulain wrote:

victorismyhero wrote:sigh...you are missing the point...again.....

If rational discussion of a word (whatever it may be) is stifled because people dare not openly refer to the word in question then there is a serious problem....and THAT problem lies in society...and in particular within that sector of society that condones such censorship on any grounds...regardless


THAT is the "negative side" of PC.....

like I said what next....


book burnings?

Sorry but your claim to victim status is absurd. You can say what you like and there is nothing stopping you from doing so in society.


iuhm...and yet.....nobody on here DARE write THAT word even when merely discussing that word, nothing to do with "social issues, nothing to do with insulting anyone, just trying to discuss a word.....and they dare not even mention the word they are discussing....hmmmmmm



I easily argued also that PC when applied correctly

thats the problem with lefty liberalist pipe dreams.....they rarely are "correctly applied"

is only beneficial as it seeks to bring about equality. If places of employmemt or schools deem words wrong, that is there choice to do so, just as parents have a right to teach their children any beliefs they have. Nobody is denied this right. So what you claim is nothing more than not liking how some in society actually want to have better manners than you.

nothing to do with "manners" and a lot to do with illegitimate "authority" or did you miss the part where i said i wouldnt use it in "common conversation etc "???

Like I say PC has actually been around for centuries in many forms.


yup true, only "back in history they at least were honest and gave it the name it deserved..."censorship" and generally it was the tool of dictators desperados and thugs....


Now you tell me I see articles posted on here that are certainly not restrained by PC what so ever. So what are you actually moaning about? Nothing because again PC when it is PC, that does not marginalize or discrminate against others, only seeks to obtain equality. So if the intent is equality, then how can that be in anyway wrong?

equality as you see it is the subject for a different debate didge...suffice to say I dont see "the race to the bottom" as equality

Like I say there is nothing stopping you saying what you like, what your real beef is with is that schools teach are children to treat groups of peope far better than they did when I was at school.


what is this about schools...you moving the goalposts again???


That can only be a good thing and in no way bad

Tommy Monk wrote:
I was walking down the local high street the other afternoon... passed a group of 6 or 7 black schoolboys walking the other way... two white school girls were also walking past on the other side of them just talking to each other, and I heard one of the black boys shout out at them...

"shut the fuck up, you dirty fucking white bitch!"

Cuchulain wrote:No this debate has everything to do with equality.
If institutions want to teach children a correct way, you have the choice to take then to a rather poorer school that things less of the well being of its pupils.
Your claim to not saying a word is nonsense again because the internet allows people to say what they like daily
The internet has given a mouth piece to every tom dick and harry to say what they lik.
So you are living nothing more than an illusion you have created for yourself. PC is mainly from systems like school, work ect, the main places where it is brought about.
So this is nothing more than a bunch of whingers have a good moan over nothing, because as seen its happened  throughout history and as we are constantly progessing as societies, then your fears are once again utterly unfounded
It has everything to do with manners.

So you are telling me you would walk up to a black man you did not know and call them a n---er?
What you are really saying is you want to actually speak about this black person and refer to him as a n---er in a discussion where they cannot defend themselves.

victorismyhero wrote:But then I knew what would happen when I posted it......


You bite every time didge....

here fishy fishy....

victorismyhero wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Those terms are a joke.

The use blackboard-chalkboard terms were debated was debated when I was a kid. I remember we as kids thought it was ridiculous. "What next, changing Ba-ba Black Sheep?", was the common response.

Even words like n---er and Paki - those words in itself are not offensive by themselves. It's context and intent. Banning words is not going to change people's intent.

my point entirely oh fuzzy one

Cuchulain wrote:

victorismyhero wrote:But then I knew what would happen when I posted it......


You bite every time didge....

here fishy fishy....

EH?

Bought what?

It seems you are the only one on the back foot, but then you are a taker. lol
Takers think they can control everything and this whole debate is about control.
You want control, where you have no right to ask for control, when it is already controlled by others

Ben_Reilly wrote:I think people must be more sensitive in the UK ... here, black people are fine with being called black, deaf people call themselves deaf, blind people blind, etc.

Cuchulain wrote:

victorismyhero wrote:But then I knew what would happen when I posted it......


You bite every time didge....

here fishy fishy....

EH?

Bought what?

It seems you are the only one on the back foot, but then you are a taker. lol


I cant beleive that, on a thread about PC, even YOU could be daft enough to make such a politically incorrect statement (albeit inadvertantly) (hint ...it could be construed by a sufficiently rabid PC zealot as homophobic...NOW I know it wasnt but the delicate reader who encounters that ...well I'm afraid its off to the PC gulag for you me boy


Takers think they can control everything and this whole debate is about control.
You want control, where you have no right to ask for control, when it is already controlled by others

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:I think people must be more sensitive in the UK ... here, black people are fine with being called black, deaf people call themselves deaf, blind people blind, etc.

I tell you the problem I have. It's describing people's skin colour as black or white.

It's neither.  I object on artistic and logical grounds. It should actually be "brown" and "pink".

That's what really pisses me off.

On a side note, this thread has highlighted some fundamental points:

1. Banning words does not change people's attitude
2. Banning words is a form of mind control that stifles the freedom of thought and has Vic has pointed out - deprives those who are under this mind control from a sense of humour. This is why so many comedians and intellectuals are against curtailing freedom of expression.

victorismyhero wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

I tell you the problem I have. It's describing people's skin colour as black or white.

It's neither.  I object on artistic and logical grounds. It should actually be "brown" and "pink".

That's what really pisses me off.

On a side note, this thread has highlighted some fundamental points:

1. Banning words does not change people's attitude
2. Banning words is a form of mind control that stifles the freedom of thought and has Vic has pointed out - deprives those who are under this mind control from a sense of humour. This is why so many comedians and intellectuals are against curtailing freedom of expression.

bloody 'ell fuzzy thats the second time in one thread we are agreed on something

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:I think people must be more sensitive in the UK ... here, black people are fine with being called black, deaf people call themselves deaf, blind people blind, etc.

I tell you the problem I have. It's describing people's skin colour as black or white.

It's neither.  I object on artistic and logical grounds. It should actually be "brown" and "pink".

That's what really pisses me off.

On a side note, this thread has highlighted some fundamental points:

1. Banning words does not change people's attitude
2. Banning words is a form of mind control that stifles the freedom of thought and has Vic has pointed out - deprives those who are under this mind control from a sense of humour. This is why so many comedians and intellectuals are against curtailing freedom of expression.

victorismyhero wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:
EH?

Bought what?

It seems you are the only one on the back foot, but then you are a taker. lol


I cant beleive that, on a thread about PC, even YOU could be daft enough to make such a politically incorrect statement (albeit inadvertantly)     (hint ...it could be construed by a sufficiently rabid PC zealot as homophobic...NOW I know it wasnt but the delicate reader who encounters that ...well I'm afraid its off to the PC gulag for you me boy


Takers think they can control everything and this whole debate is about control.
You want control, where you have no right to ask for control, when it is already controlled by others

Cuchulain wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

I tell you the problem I have. It's describing people's skin colour as black or white.

It's neither.  I object on artistic and logical grounds. It should actually be "brown" and "pink".

That's what really pisses me off.

On a side note, this thread has highlighted some fundamental points:

1. Banning words does not change people's attitude
2. Banning words is a form of mind control that stifles the freedom of thought and has Vic has pointed out - deprives those who are under this mind control from a sense of humour. This is why so many comedians and intellectuals are against curtailing freedom of expression.

Banning words in schools and work prevents discrmination, bullying, suffering, because there is consequences if you do break these rules.

but does it....or do the words just change....after all....you could destroy someone by calling em fat.....so you ban the use of the word fat (hmmmm REALLY???) and so they get refeered to as Lard or by a brand name of lard

when I was at school they banned us cruel horrible lads from calling skinny girls "twiggy" so we called em "wednesday legs"
Wenesday legs asks the teacher...yes ...whens dey going to snap.......DOH!!!!!!!!!

perhaps instead of banning words...it would be better to promote good manners instead...but of course THAT takes more time and effort , and requires the cooperation of parents....

I believe in freedom of speech and you still have that freedom, you just have to live with the consequences if you do break them in places that seek to protect people.
The reality is and comedians is an excellent example to show how in many aspects of life people are still free to say and do as they please. It is again in places where once before groups had little to no protection.
Its all about toleration.
At the end of the day there is nothing stopping people saying what they like.

victorismyhero wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Banning words in schools and work prevents discrmination, bullying, suffering, because there is consequences if you do break these rules.

but does it....or do the words just change....after all....you could destroy someone by calling em fat.....so you ban the use of the word fat (hmmmm REALLY???) and so they get refeered to as Lard or by a brand name of lard  

when I was at school they banned us cruel horrible lads from calling skinny girls "twiggy"    so we called em "wednesday legs"
Wenesday legs asks the teacher...yes ...whens dey going to snap.......DOH!!!!!!!!!

perhaps instead of banning words...it would be better to promote good manners instead...but of course THAT takes more time and effort , and requires the cooperation of parents....

I believe in freedom of speech and you still have that freedom, you just have to live with the consequences if you do break them in places that seek to protect people.
The reality is and comedians is an excellent example to show how in many aspects of life people are still free to say and do as they please. It is again in places where once before groups had little to no protection.
Its all about toleration.
At the end of the day there is nothing stopping people saying what they like.

Cuchulain wrote:

victorismyhero wrote:

So you are saying then that rules do not work?
Your argument is saying you could tell the teacher to fuck off, but would banning saying fuck off stop you.

It might stop me telling him to F**K off, it wouldnt however have stopped me telling him hes wrong and an incompetant idiot at that (if that was the reason)
see...still insubordinate and bolshie....just the words change....you havnt changed my attitude.....just the words i use...


One of the ways to promote good manners is to have consequences for using them words banned.
Again house rules, you are in somebody elses house, whether it be a school or place of work.
Now you tell me Victor, as when I grew up, saying something as minor as bloody got me a clip round the ear from my parents. Times change and now that would not even be deemed bad to say.
Now did you ever swear at home in frongt of your parents?

only once

Did you say to them it was PC not to allow you to swear?
Or did you show them respect?
This is all about what is reasonable and what is unreasonable.

agreed...but a single ideology (the LLA) is not and should not be the arbiter of that....IF you are going to have such a thing, then lets have it enacted in a proper and lawful manner with the authority of the crown behind it and subject to the constraints that accrue around "laws" NOT left in the hands of a group of lefty luvvies who one can be absolutely certain have NEVER lived in the real world.....

Yes I know there has been some over the top idiots you claim to try and do good by thinking they are being PC and makes things, worse but as I have said the principle is sound when it does not marginalize or discriminate against others.

Anyway night mate

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:I think people must be more sensitive in the UK ... here, black people are fine with being called black, deaf people call themselves deaf, blind people blind, etc.

I tell you the problem I have. It's describing people's skin colour as black or white.

It's neither.  I object on artistic and logical grounds. It should actually be "brown" and "pink".

That's what really pisses me off.

On a side note, this thread has highlighted some fundamental points:

1. Banning words does not change people's attitude
2. Banning words is a form of mind control that stifles the freedom of thought and has Vic has pointed out - deprives those who are under this mind control from a sense of humour. This is why so many comedians and intellectuals are against curtailing freedom of expression.

gelico again wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

victorismyhero wrote:

yes eddie all thats true...BUT

when folks are so scared that they dare not even write the word they are discussing, but instead resort to (in fact quite childish) "masking" in order to avoid censure from the PC brigade
then there is something seriously wrong

The N word has actually been filtered here by admin.

so I noticed

poof hasn't though

surely if you ban one nasty word you should ban them all