quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
The term "politically correct" is used to attack people calling for public decency and politeness. It is a shield for cowards who want to be rude, racist, sexist, or whatever, and then when they are called on it, go on the attack and claim that others are merely being "politically correct."

It is a weasel word used by poltroons.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Firenze:
My understanding - largely derived from workplace Diversity Training - is that PC is about raising awareness of the unthinking stereotyping of people on the basis of their gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, physical capacity etc. Or as one of our participants put it: 'Why can't I call them poofs or spazes - that's what they are.'

I'm not sure why this represents a threat to Christianity which - at least originally - made a big point of appealing to the despised and marginalised.

---

Considering that our church organist refers to 'poofter marriages' in a non-ironic way (and we're an AffCath church with a gay priest!), you would be surprised

<tangent> Our organist is much more conservative than our church (he apparently just likes playing the organ that much and attends the evening service of a local uber-Calvinist con-evo church, which I find very weird. </tangent>
 

---

Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
The term "politically correct" is used to attack people calling for public decency and politeness. It is a shield for cowards who want to be rude, racist, sexist, or whatever, and then when they are called on it, go on the attack and claim that others are merely being "politically correct."

It is a weasel word used by poltroons.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Just as I suspected, you were trolling. Oh, and thanks for being "Exhibit A" for exactly what I said.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Firenze:

I'm not sure why this represents a threat to Christianity which - at least originally - made a big point of appealing to the despised and marginalised.

---

quote:

---

I hoped I would get this answer.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
The term "politically correct" is used to attack people calling for public decency and politeness. It is a shield for cowards who want to be rude, racist, sexist, or whatever, and then when they are called on it, go on the attack and claim that others are merely being "politically correct."

It is a weasel word used by poltroons.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Indifferently:
'Diversity' days at work often attempt to infuse the idea that all religions are somehow equal

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl:
I have to agree with Mousethief. You usually hear accusations of "politically correct" when someone wants to get away with name calling or being just plain rude.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Indifferently:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Firenze:

I'm not sure why this represents a threat to Christianity which - at least originally - made a big point of appealing to the despised and marginalised.

---

That is precisely what we are called to do, indeed, and we do. But God 'desireth not the death of a sinner, but that he may turn from his wickedness and live'. Political correctness, in some forms, actually calls for us to actively embrace sin and call it holy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl:
I have to agree with Mousethief. You usually hear accusations of "politically correct" when someone wants to get away with name calling or being just plain rude.

---

While no doubt the 'political correctness defence', if I can call it that, is raised by people who are rude, is it always that?

In those instances where 'blackboard' has given way to 'chalkboard' or 'black coffee' has given way to 'coffee without milk'* those who object to the new terms or steadfastly use the old ones aren't necessarily rude, rather there is a legitimate difference of opinion.


*These are the best examples that I can think of at nearly midnight. They probably aren't very strong ones and these particular PC terms may really date from the 80s rather than today, but I think my point sort-of stands.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Indifferently
Political correctness is a comprehensive phenomenon. It seems to do a lot to control what we think and say, and as much to control what we do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Being 'PC' means not calling a gay person a poofter, not calling a person with Down's Syndrome a mong, not calling a disabled person a cripple. Surely that is a wholly Christian attitude?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl:
I have to agree with Mousethief. You usually hear accusations of "politically correct" when someone wants to get away with name calling or being just plain rude.

---

While no doubt the 'political correctness defence', if I can call it that, is raised by people who are rude, is it always that?

In those instances where 'blackboard' has given way to 'chalkboard' or 'black coffee' has given way to 'coffee without milk'* those who object to the new terms or steadfastly use the old ones aren't necessarily rude, rather there is a legitimate difference of opinion.


*These are the best examples that I can think of at nearly midnight. They probably aren't very strong ones and these particular PC terms may really date from the 80s rather than today, but I think my point sort-of stands.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Those two examples having nothing to do with political correctness. When I was at school, our chalkboards were dark green so it would make no sense to call them blackboards

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Being 'PC' means not calling a gay person a poofter, not calling a person with Down's Syndrome a mong, not calling a disabled person a cripple. Surely that is a wholly Christian attitude?

---

That's fair enough. But then a situation comes along like where one cannot use the word 'homosexual' when discussing homoseuxality and gay people and the impression can arise that normal, everyday language is being constrained unreasonably. That's the sort of thing that I would call (disparagingly) 'political correctness'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
In those instances where 'blackboard' has given way to 'chalkboard' or 'black coffee' has given way to 'coffee without milk'* those who object to the new terms or steadfastly use the old ones aren't necessarily rude, rather there is a legitimate difference of opinion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Being 'PC' means not calling a gay person a poofter, not calling a person with Down's Syndrome a mong, not calling a disabled person a cripple. Surely that is a wholly Christian attitude?

---

That's fair enough. But then a situation comes along like where one cannot use the word 'homosexual' when discussing homoseuxality and gay people and the impression can arise that normal, everyday language is being constrained unreasonably. That's the sort of thing that I would call (disparagingly) 'political correctness'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Indifferently
Political correctness is a comprehensive phenomenon. It seems to do a lot to control what we think and say, and as much to control what we do.

---

Thank you for putting up this thread, and I certainly don't think you are either trolling or preaching.

You have made some very valid points.

The key word in the term "political correctness" is "correctness": a notion of moral correctness which is entirely inflexible, and ironically constructed by a society which turns its nose up at what could loosely be termed "traditional morality".

I find it interesting that the person who called you a 'troll' also champions PC! And apparently PC is all about not insulting people!! That says it all, for me. PC is a whitewash. It is not about politeness but control, because the moment the advocates of PC are challenged we see how committed to politeness they really are.

I notice that another contributor has tried to kill the discussion with the snide comment: "Nothing to see here folks. Move along." They don't want their views challenged. So much for freedom of speech. Liberals they are certainly not.

I notice that some of those who call for politeness think nothing of saying the most pathetic things about people on the "hell" board on the Ship.

What a joke.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Are you suggesting that it isn't rude if you call me what you want to call me, rather than calling me what I want to be called?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Indifferently:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Firenze:

I'm not sure why this represents a threat to Christianity which - at least originally - made a big point of appealing to the despised and marginalised.

---

That is precisely what we are called to do, indeed, and we do. But God 'desireth not the death of a sinner, but that he may turn from his wickedness and live'. Political correctness, in some forms, actually calls for us to actively embrace sin and call it holy.

---

Bullshit. Being 'PC' means not calling a gay person a poofter, not calling a person with Down's Syndrome a mong, not calling a disabled person a cripple. Surely that is a wholly Christian attitude? Words can hurt people, and we should use words that do not cause harm. I fail to see how that embraces sin. Surely the sin would be causing harm to people with our words, as James warns against?

Also, please do not assume that being a Christian requires any kind of uniform belief on sexual ethics. It does not. I attend a liberal Anglo-Catholic church with views on sexuality you would probably consider 'un-Christian', but I assure you that I am very much a Christian, as is my priest and the rest of the congregation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jon in the Nati:
Nothing to see here folks. Move along.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Indifferently
Political correctness is a comprehensive phenomenon. It seems to do a lot to control what we think and say, and as much to control what we do.

---

Thank you for putting up this thread, and I certainly don't think you are either trolling or preaching.

You have made some very valid points.

The key word in the term "political correctness" is "correctness": a notion of moral correctness which is entirely inflexible, and ironically constructed by a society which turns its nose up at what could loosely be termed "traditional morality".

I find it interesting that the person who called you a 'troll' also champions PC! And apparently PC is all about not insulting people!! That says it all, for me. PC is a whitewash. It is not about politeness but control, because the moment the advocates of PC are challenged we see how committed to politeness they really are.

I notice that another contributor has tried to kill the discussion with the snide comment: "Nothing to see here folks. Move along." They don't want their views challenged. So much for freedom of speech. Liberals they are certainly not.

I notice that some of those who call for politeness think nothing of saying the most pathetic things about people on the "hell" board on the Ship.

What a joke.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Indifferently:
Christ has ruled these islands for 1400 years.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Indifferently:

What is the nature and purpose of political correctness? Do you perceive it as a threat to Christianity?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Indifferently:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Indifferently:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Firenze:

I'm not sure why this represents a threat to Christianity which - at least originally - made a big point of appealing to the despised and marginalised.

---

That is precisely what we are called to do, indeed, and we do. But God 'desireth not the death of a sinner, but that he may turn from his wickedness and live'. Political correctness, in some forms, actually calls for us to actively embrace sin and call it holy.

---

Bullshit. Being 'PC' means not calling a gay person a poofter, not calling a person with Down's Syndrome a mong, not calling a disabled person a cripple. Surely that is a wholly Christian attitude? Words can hurt people, and we should use words that do not cause harm. I fail to see how that embraces sin. Surely the sin would be causing harm to people with our words, as James warns against?

Also, please do not assume that being a Christian requires any kind of uniform belief on sexual ethics. It does not. I attend a liberal Anglo-Catholic church with views on sexuality you would probably consider 'un-Christian', but I assure you that I am very much a Christian, as is my priest and the rest of the congregation.

---

And by whose authority do you hold these views on sexual ethicso if not God's?

As far as Britain being a secular society, again I ask: by whose authority? The Church of England is established by law. Christ has ruled these islands for 1400 years.

Here is a good article on political correctness by author Peter Hitchens:

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2006/03/please_can_we_s.html

---

I see you've ignored what I said about James and not using harmful words being good for Christians. Why?

Who says conservative evangelicalism is obsessed with what people do in the bedroom?
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
I do not do political correctness. I think it is a poor approach.
I do respect. And, if Christians paid attention to that Jesus fellow, they'd not get their knickers in such a twist when others feel disrespected by their intolerance.

[ 17. January 2013, 00:03: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 

---

Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :
 
I have never heard anybody use the phrase Political Correctness without a pejorative meaning.

Its not like there ever was a liberal Granny out there who said to somebody ,"Oh, grandchild of mine, that's not very politically correct of you!"


Its a subjective term.


Much like those other now overly poxed upon words - liberal or conservative.
 

---

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Are you suggesting that it isn't rude if you call me what you want to call me, rather than calling me what I want to be called?

---

I think it might depend on what you want to be called (do a small group of people have an absolute right to determine how the English language should be used? Possibly, but I'm not entirely sure).

Also, it appears to me, the 'rules' can be dreamt up by people pushing a certain agenda without necessarily carrying the people they represent. For example, in the article I linked to, Stonewall agreed with the ban on the word 'homosexual' by civil servants but many of the comments by readers were appalled by the decision. Now obviously the readers' comments do not necessarily reflect entirely opinion amongst gay people (since they're somewhat self-selecting) but they might be indicative.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Indifferently:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Indifferently:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Firenze:

I'm not sure why this represents a threat to Christianity which - at least originally - made a big point of appealing to the despised and marginalised.

---

That is precisely what we are called to do, indeed, and we do. But God 'desireth not the death of a sinner, but that he may turn from his wickedness and live'. Political correctness, in some forms, actually calls for us to actively embrace sin and call it holy.

---

Bullshit. Being 'PC' means not calling a gay person a poofter, not calling a person with Down's Syndrome a mong, not calling a disabled person a cripple. Surely that is a wholly Christian attitude? Words can hurt people, and we should use words that do not cause harm. I fail to see how that embraces sin. Surely the sin would be causing harm to people with our words, as James warns against?

Also, please do not assume that being a Christian requires any kind of uniform belief on sexual ethics. It does not. I attend a liberal Anglo-Catholic church with views on sexuality you would probably consider 'un-Christian', but I assure you that I am very much a Christian, as is my priest and the rest of the congregation.

---

And by whose authority do you hold these views on sexual ethicso if not God's?

As far as Britain being a secular society, again I ask: by whose authority? The Church of England is established by law. Christ has ruled these islands for 1400 years.

Here is a good article on political correctness by author Peter Hitchens:

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2006/03/please_can_we_s.html

---

I see you've ignored what I said about James and not using harmful words being good for Christians. Why?

Who says conservative evangelicalism is obsessed with what people do in the bedroom?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
I think it might depend on what you want to be called (do a small group of people have an absolute right to determine how the English language should be used? Possibly, but I'm not entirely sure).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:
Interesting to note that the OP completely ignores disability and mental health terminology which blows a rather big hole in the conspiracy theory. Christianity is of course well-known for demanding that its adherents insult those sinful and immoral people with disabilities and commonly stigmatised sorts of illness. (Not!)

PC is a pejorative term for using language which reflects the equal standing and worth of historically-stigmatised and ill-treated groups. Like customer service language designed to treat the customers of a business well and put them at ease, this can on occasion be done badly, clunkingly or artificially but it's basically just trying to treat people well. Such attempts can occasionally be hijacked by the 'unco guid' - the rigidly righteous - to show how much better they are than others, which gets peoples backs up, but er... on those grounds we'd need to abandon religious language which can do that too!

Mind you I think the sound of a large axe being ground can be discerned...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Indifferently:
Who said I was a conservative evangelical? I'm a MOTR Protestant.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
It makes sense that gay people (for instance) get to say what words referring to gay people are offensive, and what words aren't. Obviously, as you point out, opinions within those groups vary, but the important thing is that it is those groups who decide, and not outsiders. Now if it was straight people who decided that 'homosexual' was offensive, it would be wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Indifferently:
It is not, however, rude to use the word homosexuality, it is perfectly accurate and technical. The PC word ' gay' has moral overtones antithetical to Christianity.

Who said I was a conservative evangelical? I'm a MOTR Protestant.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:
Interesting to note that the OP completely ignores disability and mental health terminology which blows a rather big hole in the conspiracy theory. Christianity is of course well-known for demanding that its adherents insult those sinful and immoral people with disabilities and commonly stigmatised sorts of illness. (Not!)

PC is a pejorative term for using language which reflects the equal standing and worth of historically-stigmatised and ill-treated groups. Like customer service language designed javascript:void(0)to treat the customers of a business well and put them at ease, this can on occasion be done badly, clunkingly or artificially but it's basically just trying to treat people well. Such attempts can occasionally be hijacked by the 'unco guid' - the rigidly righteous - to show how much better they are than others, which gets peoples backs up, but er... on those grounds we'd need to abandon religious language which can do that too!

Mind you I think the sound of a large axe being ground can be discerned...

---

Puts it much better than I did or could have.
 

---

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Indifferently:
I'm not trying yo defend the use of rude language. It is not, however, rude to use the word homosexuality, it is perfectly accurate and technical. The PC word ' gay' has moral overtones antithetical to Christianity.

Who said I was a conservative evangelical? I'm a MOTR Protestant.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
It makes sense that gay people (for instance) get to say what words referring to gay people are offensive, and what words aren't. Obviously, as you point out, opinions within those groups vary, but the important thing is that it is those groups who decide, and not outsiders. Now if it was straight people who decided that 'homosexual' was offensive, it would be wrong.

---

I'm afraid I disagree. First of all, it seems to hive off parts of the English language to certain sections of society when the language is a common thing used by all. I think this is very divisive. Secondly, this seems to introduce a wholly subjective test when looking at words. While I wouldn't want to wholly disregard a subjective view, some objectivity must be kept too, surely?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Indifferently:
I am blind actually. Not that it's relevant, but I suspect that changing this word will also happen - I have had fully- sighted left-wingers tell me I must say partially sighted - will also be banned as well soon just to reinforce the point that everything old people say (and therefore think) is wrong and they are backward bigots so we must move away from their beliefs and embrace PC and the sexual revolution because, well, we know so much better.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Indifferently:
I am blind actually. Not that it's relevant, but I suspect that changing this word will also happen - I have had fully- sighted left-wingers tell me I must say partially sighted - will also be banned as well soon just to reinforce the point that everything old people say (and therefore think) is wrong and they are backward bigots so we must move away from their beliefs and embrace PC and the sexual revolution because, well, we know so much better.

---

Wow. First of all, which is it? Are you blind, or are you partially-sighted? Where I live and work (with people who have a variety of disabilities, as it happens), these two terms have different meanings. And neither has been, so far as I know, banned, or is likely to be.

I have a substantial hearing deficit, and it annoys me no end when people describe me as "deaf." I'm not; I'm hard-of-hearing. Also, I rather doubt that a penchant for accuracy is a strictly left-wing (or for that matter, fully-sighted) trait.

And while I certainly agree there's plenty of ageism going around, isn't it possible that it's the ideas themselves people are objecting to, rather than their age or that of the individual holding them?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Indifferently:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:
Interesting to note that the OP completely ignores disability and mental health terminology which blows a rather big hole in the conspiracy theory. Christianity is of course well-known for demanding that its adherents insult those sinful and immoral people with disabilities and commonly stigmatised sorts of illness. (Not!)

PC is a pejorative term for using language which reflects the equal standing and worth of historically-stigmatised and ill-treated groups. Like customer service language designed to treat the customers of a business well and put them at ease, this can on occasion be done badly, clunkingly or artificially but it's basically just trying to treat people well. Such attempts can occasionally be hijacked by the 'unco guid' - the rigidly righteous - to show how much better they are than others, which gets peoples backs up, but er... on those grounds we'd need to abandon religious language which can do that too!

Mind you I think the sound of a large axe being ground can be discerned...

---

I am blind actually. Not that it's relevant, but I suspect that changing this word will also happen - I have had fully- sighted left-wingers tell me I must say partially sighted - will also be banned as well soon just to reinforce the point that everything old people say (and therefore think) is wrong and they are backward bigots so we must move away from their beliefs and embrace PC and the sexual revolution because, well, we know so much better.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Indifferently:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Indifferently:
I am blind actually. Not that it's relevant, but I suspect that changing this word will also happen - I have had fully- sighted left-wingers tell me I must say partially sighted - will also be banned as well soon just to reinforce the point that everything old people say (and therefore think) is wrong and they are backward bigots so we must move away from their beliefs and embrace PC and the sexual revolution because, well, we know so much better.

---

Wow. First of all, which is it? Are you blind, or are you partially-sighted? Where I live and work (with people who have a variety of disabilities, as it happens), these two terms have different meanings. And neither has been, so far as I know, banned, or is likely to be.

I have a substantial hearing deficit, and it annoys me no end when people describe me as "deaf." I'm not; I'm hard-of-hearing. Also, I rather doubt that a penchant for accuracy is a strictly left-wing (or for that matter, fully-sighted) trait.

And while I certainly agree there's plenty of ageism going around, isn't it possible that it's the ideas themselves people are objecting to, rather than their age or that of the individual holding them?

---

Oh, the ideas are certainly what PC brigade objects to. Such as
- the idea that men and women might have different and distinct roles
- the idea that sexual behaviour outside marriage is wrong
- the idea that drug users are responsible for their drug taking (hence we must now call them 'addicts' to absolve them of any such responsibility)

A whole new vocabulary is invented and propagated to remove Christian principles from the way we govern ourselves. An above . posted suggested it was ok to be rude or hateful towards people if they can't hear you - that certainly isn't true if you affirm the Christian faith.

However, more and more, Christianity is marginalized. Civil partnerships are now going to be called ' marriage'. It has nothing to do with the welfare of minorities, and everything to do Sith a well organized campaign to destroy our Christian culture.

Multiculturalism, which uses our schools to teach that all religions are basically equally morally valid, does the same thing. It's a means of churning out atheists who think they have no need of God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Indifferently:
If having socially conservative views makes me an evangelical then I suppose the Bishop of Rome must be a Zwinglist. I'm a theologically liberal Protestant who sees his country in the throes of total meltdown.

Notice that so called sex education happens to have been first introduced in Marxist Hungary? What was its purpose, I wonder?

---

I'm not saying that being socially conservative makes you an evangelical, I'm saying that it makes you conservative. How can you be theologically liberal and socially conservative?? Please explain how you are theologically liberal? What denomination (if any) are you a member of?

And sex education has been happening a lot longer than Marxism has. Abstinence-only sex education fails - it failed the Blessed Virgin Mary after all
 

---

Posted by gorpo (# 17025) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Indifferently:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Firenze:

I'm not sure why this represents a threat to Christianity which - at least originally - made a big point of appealing to the despised and marginalised.

---

That is precisely what we are called to do, indeed, and we do. But God 'desireth not the death of a sinner, but that he may turn from his wickedness and live'. Political correctness, in some forms, actually calls for us to actively embrace sin and call it holy.

---

Bullshit. Being 'PC' means not calling a gay person a poofter, not calling a person with Down's Syndrome a mong, not calling a disabled person a cripple. Surely that is a wholly Christian attitude? Words can hurt people, and we should use words that do not cause harm. I fail to see how that embraces sin. Surely the sin would be causing harm to people with our words, as James warns against?

Also, please do not assume that being a Christian requires any kind of uniform belief on sexual ethics. It does not. I attend a liberal Anglo-Catholic church with views on sexuality you would probably consider 'un-Christian', but I assure you that I am very much a Christian, as is my priest and the rest of the congregation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
... it seems to hive off parts of the English language to certain sections of society when the language is a common thing used by all. I think this is very divisive. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Indifferently:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Firenze:

I'm not sure why this represents a threat to Christianity which - at least originally - made a big point of appealing to the despised and marginalised.

---

That is precisely what we are called to do, indeed, and we do. But God 'desireth not the death of a sinner, but that he may turn from his wickedness and live'. Political correctness, in some forms, actually calls for us to actively embrace sin and call it holy.

---

Bullshit. Being 'PC' means not calling a gay person a poofter, not calling a person with Down's Syndrome a mong, not calling a disabled person a cripple. Surely that is a wholly Christian attitude? Words can hurt people, and we should use words that do not cause harm. I fail to see how that embraces sin. Surely the sin would be causing harm to people with our words, as James warns against?

Also, please do not assume that being a Christian requires any kind of uniform belief on sexual ethics. It does not. I attend a liberal Anglo-Catholic church with views on sexuality you would probably consider 'un-Christian', but I assure you that I am very much a Christian, as is my priest and the rest of the congregation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by gorpo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Indifferently:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Firenze:

I'm not sure why this represents a threat to Christianity which - at least originally - made a big point of appealing to the despised and marginalised.

---

That is precisely what we are called to do, indeed, and we do. But God 'desireth not the death of a sinner, but that he may turn from his wickedness and live'. Political correctness, in some forms, actually calls for us to actively embrace sin and call it holy.

---

Bullshit. Being 'PC' means not calling a gay person a poofter, not calling a person with Down's Syndrome a mong, not calling a disabled person a cripple. Surely that is a wholly Christian attitude? Words can hurt people, and we should use words that do not cause harm. I fail to see how that embraces sin. Surely the sin would be causing harm to people with our words, as James warns against?

Also, please do not assume that being a Christian requires any kind of uniform belief on sexual ethics. It does not. I attend a liberal Anglo-Catholic church with views on sexuality you would probably consider 'un-Christian', but I assure you that I am very much a Christian, as is my priest and the rest of the congregation.

---

Of course christians don´t have uniform beliefs on sexual ethics, but that is precisely what the politically correct party is requiring of all christians.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Indifferently:
Oh, the ideas are certainly what PC brigade objects to. Such as
- the idea that men and women might have different and distinct roles
- the idea that sexual behaviour outside marriage is wrong
- the idea that drug users are responsible for their drug taking (hence we must now call them 'addicts' to absolve them of any such responsibility)

A whole new vocabulary is invented and propagated to remove Christian principles from the way we govern ourselves. An above . posted suggested it was ok to be rude or hateful towards people if they can't hear you - that certainly isn't true if you affirm the Christian faith.

However, more and more, Christianity is marginalized. Civil partnerships are now going to be called ' marriage'. It has nothing to do with the welfare of minorities, and everything to do Sith a well organized campaign to destroy our Christian culture.

Multiculturalism, which uses our schools to teach that all religions are basically equally morally valid, does the same thing. It's a means of churning out atheists who think they have no need of God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
How can you be theologically liberal and socially conservative?? Please explain how you are theologically liberal?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Of course christians don´t have uniform beliefs on sexual ethics, but that is precisely what the politically correct party is requiring of all christians.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
How can you be theologically liberal and socially conservative?? Please explain how you are theologically liberal?

---

I'm the reverse-- theologically conservative and socially/politically liberal. Happens all the time-- people just refuse to stay put in their little boxes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by gorpo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Of course christians don´t have uniform beliefs on sexual ethics, but that is precisely what the politically correct party is requiring of all christians.

---

I was countering Indifferently's claim that their own view of Christian sexual morality is what Christians should believe. My liberal view of sexual morality doesn't make me less Christian. And the 'politically correct party' has no issue with private beliefs - it's when private beliefs turn into public speech. No one is going to be stopped from believing that particular sexual activities are sinful, but it is wrong for them to publicly talk about those people going to Hell, particularly marginalised groups such as LGBTQ people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Yes Virginia, there is such a thing as PC, but its existence is not an excuse to be deliberately offensive.

Simple example: It is PC to remove the word "nigger" from the writings of Mark Twain, but it is not PC, simply basic decency, to refrain from using the word today.

While deliberate offensiveness is to be avoided, it is questionable whether the principle that minorities should always have the right to demand what they be called by others is self-evidently true.

After all, there are neo-Nazis who want to be called patriots, communists who want to be called liberals or progressives, Islamofascists who want to be called mainstream Muslims, terrorists who want to be called freedom-fighters.

Do evangelicals who are not YEC, KJV-only, PSA-only, dispensationalist, etc., have the right to demand that they not be called fundamentalist?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
It's easy to find words to describe those people in ways they don't find offensive - if you (general you) object to that, then you're just valuing your right to be offensive over someone else's right not to be hurt by your language.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tclune:
There's a right not to be hurt by another's language?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
liberal is not and never has been the same as left-wing

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
liberal is not and never has been the same as left-wing

---

True.

George Orwell's is probably the best-known attempt at a synthesis, but it can be questioned whether it was really viable, or wishful thinking.

So, why are left-wingers - even communist sympathisers - in the United States called liberals?

---

quote:

---

A number of people do not think that the Catholic Church, Christian Scientists or The Chuch of Latter Day Saints are catholic, scientists or saints, but the names are still used with out conceding the point. If it's untrue and in common use it becomes a label rather than a description.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Indifferently:
Who said I was a conservative evangelical? I'm a MOTR Protestant. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Indifferently:
Who said I was a conservative evangelical? I'm a MOTR Protestant.

---

You mean, you want us to call you what you want to be called, not what we think is an "accurate technical" label. How very PC of you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
[QUOTE]In your case, you should be the one to decide how you'd prefer to be described as a disabled person.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
[QUOTE]

1. My liberal view of sexual morality doesn't make me less Christian.

2. No one is going to be stopped from believing that particular sexual activities are sinful, but it is wrong for them to publicly talk about those people going to Hell, particularly marginalised groups such as LGBTQ people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
[QUOTE]In your case, you should be the one to decide how you'd prefer to be described as a disabled person.

---

Jade, that's a politically incorrect statement in itself. Not every person who is "disabled" wants to be referred to or classified as such. I know I don't.

Why am I more unable that you? I am not dis abled, there's some stuff I can't do but I can still do a fair bit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
[QUOTE]

1. Apologies.

2. How would you want to describe yourself? I

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jon in the Nati:
Nothing to see here folks. Move along.

---

Quite. But DNFTT is such hard advice to follow.

---

quote:

---

3. Attack the issue, not the person

Name-calling and personal insults are only allowed in Hell. Attacks outside of Hell are grounds for suspension or banning.

4. If you must get personal, take it to Hell

If you get into a personality conflict with other shipmates, you have two simple choices: end the argument or take it to Hell.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
[QUOTE]

1. My liberal view of sexual morality doesn't make me less Christian.

2. No one is going to be stopped from believing that particular sexual activities are sinful, but it is wrong for them to publicly talk about those people going to Hell, particularly marginalised groups such as LGBTQ people.

---

1. As long as you remember that view is from your own perspective: other people's (and God's) mileage MAY vary. There's always the possibility that we've got it all wrong and that "new" forms of biblical interpretation at soem time in the future will "prove" God's real position and intent.

2. In saying that you are dismissing the belief system of many people. They will discover, as we all will, whether they are right or wrong: their wrong though is no excuse for abuse and prejudice but they are allowed their views based on their interpretation however biased this may be. There has been fault on both sides -- just look at the current debate in Christianity magazine. Methinks Steve Chalk protests too mmuch but so does the guy who opposes ssm.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Indifferently:

As far as Britain being a secular society, again I ask: by whose authority? The Church of England is established by law. Christ has ruled these islands for 1400 years.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
[QUOTE] I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed their views - it's when their views impinge on others. They can believe they like in private, but telling someone they're going to Hell when the *only* person who has that authority is the Lord anyway, is wrong. Not something I'd legislate against, but wrong and more than anything just plain rude.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Indifferently:
I am not a conservative evangelical. I'm a moral and cultural conservative for all manner of reasons. I belong to the Church of England as it happens.

There are conservative atheists out there, too. Theodore Dalrymple is a fine example.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Firenze:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Indifferently:

As far as Britain being a secular society, again I ask: by whose authority? The Church of England is established by law. Christ has ruled these islands for 1400 years.

---

Laws are made by humans. Made and unmade. The Church of England is itself a creature of a king's wish to dump his wife and marry another.

This is no 1400 years of divine rule: there is 1400 years of assorted clergy agreeing to legitimise the regime in return for a share of the spoils: whoring for Babylon.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
[QUOTE] I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed their views - it's when their views impinge on others. They can believe they like in private, but telling someone they're going to Hell when the *only* person who has that authority is the Lord anyway, is wrong. Not something I'd legislate against, but wrong and more than anything just plain rude.

---

That works both ways, unfortunately. However tough you may find their views, they find it as tough to consider yours.

One example in going back to the OP. Calling gays "queer" is offensive - but calling heterosexuals "straight" (or even "hetersexual") as you've done on another thread is as offensive to them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Are you suggesting that it isn't rude if you call me what you want to call me, rather than calling me what I want to be called?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable
No one is going to be stopped from believing that particular sexual activities are sinful, but it is wrong for them to publicly talk about those people going to Hell, particularly marginalised groups such as LGBTQ people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
if a person genuinely believes that a person who commits gay activities puts their immortal soul in danger of the lake of fire, you have to allow that they are entitled to say so. According to their belief, it is their duty to warn you, just as an old time Roman Catholic must be entitled to be able to say to me, a Protestant, that by knowingly not submitting to the authority of the Pope, I put myself outside the ship of salvation as he or she understands it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Are you suggesting that it isn't rude if you call me what you want to call me, rather than calling me what I want to be called?

---

If someone is calling you something that is generally and objectively by a substantial element in society, regarded as rude and offensive, yes. e.g. n****r, k*k*, p**f.

If you are being hissy about a word that is generally used and not regarded by most people as rude or offensive, e.g. disabled, deaf, redhead, no. That is like giving voice to the inner irritation we all feel when someone spells our name wrong.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable
No one is going to be stopped from believing that particular sexual activities are sinful, but it is wrong for them to publicly talk about those people going to Hell, particularly marginalised groups such as LGBTQ people.

---

Jade Constable, if a person genuinely believes that a person who commits gay activities puts their immortal soul in danger of the lake of fire, you have to allow that they are entitled to say so. According to their belief, it is their duty to warn you, just as an old time Roman Catholic must be entitled to be able to say to me, a Protestant, that by knowingly not submitting to the authority of the Pope, I put myself outside the ship of salvation as he or she understands it.

Indifferently, referring to another recent thread, I would imagine you do not wish to be referred to as 'differently sighted'. If so, I'd agree with you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable
Yes. Having the right to call gay people 'fucking poofters' is a right you should have. Who cares what the queers think? They're not important.

And that's the crux of it. By focusing on what YOU (general you) want to call people, you are saying that they are not important. You are saying that your right to insult people is more important than their right to being treated as a fellow human being.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
PC is not about politeness. If that were the case, then we would have to assume that previous generations were far ruder than people today. Is that really the case?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable
Yes. Having the right to call gay people 'fucking poofters' is a right you should have. Who cares what the queers think? They're not important.

And that's the crux of it. By focusing on what YOU (general you) want to call people, you are saying that they are not important. You are saying that your right to insult people is more important than their right to being treated as a fellow human being.

---

Firstly, I am not advocating insulting other people. Although I am not a gay man myself, I have a very close relative who is, and calling him a 'fucking poofter' - or some such phrase - is the very last thing I would do.

However, why do we need "political correctness" in order to desist from treating people like crap? One of the points I was making was the flagrant hypocrisy of some of those who champion PC. They argue that we shouldn't insult others, and yet look at their performance on the internet (e.g. the hell board on the Ship)!

There should be freedom to discuss issues, without people feeling insulted. There are a whole range of 'taboo subjects' that if raised expose people to all sorts of unjust censure, such as a police officer advising young women to dress in a common sense way to avoid unwanted attention (there is no excuse for rape, and no excuse for calling women 'sluts', but how anyone can suggest that his concern for women's safety in the real world was unreasonable, is frankly beyond me. A policeman concerned for the safety of my daughters is someone I would respect!); or someone who sincerely believes that someone can change from being an active homosexual (as it happens, I know someone who got married after having lived a gay lifestyle. Of course, I have no idea whether he is going through secret struggles or not, but ostensibly that is not the case and I wouldn't want to build an argument from silence); or perhaps daring to suggest that men and women might actually be different in ways that are not simply related to the reproductive systems and that some jobs might actually be more suited to one sex rather than the other (actually I am in a job that involves caring, and it is abundantly clear that male and female carers do generally have different - though complementary - approaches to the job); or expressing certain opinions about the difficult issue of immigration (which often involves being accused of racism or "Daily Mail" fascism); or wanting to uphold the view that marriage should be between a man and a woman (but no, that is being homophobic!); I could go on...

PC is not about politeness. If that were the case, then we would have to assume that previous generations were far ruder than people today. Is that really the case? From speaking to the older generation, the overwhelming impression I have is that attitudes today are far more sullen, insulting, vulgar and base than fifty years ago. PC has therefore failed and failed miserably, if politeness and civility is the goal. (Just see who gives up his seat for a pregnant woman on a bus - an act that would have been second nature years ago. But no! He shouldn't do that, because that is being 'patronising'!)

PC is all about creating taboos. Therefore mind control. And what is worse, it is done in the name of 'liberalism'!

Go on. Denounce me with much self-righteous huffing and puffing...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Funny thing is, I've never ever heard anyone say anything along the lines of "you shouldn't say that, it's not politically correct."

Never.

---

quote:

---

I've only ever heard the phrase used perjoritatively, generally by people who've actually been told "It's better not to say that, gay people are offended by being called 'fucking queers'" and rather than think "perhaps I am an insensitive, offensive, homophobic twat", prefer to put it down to "political correctness gone mad", usually involve the word "brigade" somewhere, and therefore don't have to consider whether they are, in fact, an arsehole.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
PC is not about politeness. If that were the case, then we would have to assume that previous generations were far ruder than people today. Is that really the case?

---

Have you read any Shakespeare recently? Or have you read anything on how the 19th century upper class treated their servants? Or how the rise of black-led churches in England was in part due to the treatment black Anglicans received in the CofE when they immigrated here? Go and try and find an episode of the 1970s alleged "comedy" Love Thy Neighbour and come back and tell us that you aren't shocked by what was socially acceptable even 40 years ago.

For myself, I have one big problem with PC. What is, or isn't, PC is still usually determined by white middle-class non-disabled heterosexuals. Nobody asked me whether I wanted to be called "gay", "queer", "homosexual" or whatever. White, middle-class, non-disabled heterosexuals are telling me what I have to be called today, just as they were doing in the 1860s. That's what's wrong with PC, and that's largely why I choose to self-identify as "queer": I'm telling them/you that they/you don't get to choose my identity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
PC is not about politeness. If that were the case, then we would have to assume that previous generations were far ruder than people today. Is that really the case? From speaking to the older generation, the overwhelming impression I have is that attitudes today are far more sullen, insulting, vulgar and base than fifty years ago. PC has therefore failed and failed miserably, if politeness and civility is the goal. (Just see who gives up his seat for a pregnant woman on a bus - an act that would have been second nature years ago. But no! He shouldn't do that, because that is being 'patronising'!)
[/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Or have you read anything on how the 19th century upper class treated their servants?

---

You're not suggesting that Downton Abbey's Lord Grantham was a bad employer, surely?!
 

---

Posted by glockenspiel (# 13645) on :
 
Stuart Lee mounts the best 'defence' for the political-correctness 'movement' - indirectly here, by making me hate Richard Hammond, too, by the end of it! ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0i0RXMvzMs
 

---

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
PC is not about politeness. If that were the case, then we would have to assume that previous generations were far ruder than people today. Is that really the case? From speaking to the older generation, the overwhelming impression I have is that attitudes today are far more sullen, insulting, vulgar and base than fifty years ago.

---

quote:

---

Just see who gives up his seat for a pregnant woman on a bus - an act that would have been second nature years ago. But no! He shouldn't do that, because that is being 'patronising'!)

---

quote:

---

PC is all about creating taboos. Therefore mind control.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Penny S:

It's odd how Orwell saw Newspeak being used by the left, when most modern examples of diminishing meaning have been done by the right.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Penny S:

It's odd how Orwell saw Newspeak being used by the left, when most modern examples of diminishing meaning have been done by the right.

---

That's another myth of the Right to which you seem to have inadvertently succumbed, that Orwell wrote 1984 as an attack on socialist totalitarianism. Indeed, he did see that as a danger, but he was equally alert to its right-wing equivalent. He was certainly used by the (right-wing) establishment to expose left-wing intellectuals and politicians; he saw the threat of Soviet communism, but he remained a socialist (albeit an idiosyncratic one) and knew that totalitarianism was totalitarianism wherever it came from. After all, he fought against Fascism in the Spanish Civil War.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Penny S:
And since when has it been wrong to be correct?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
And like it or not, there is a hint of the Thought Police in PC...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tclune:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
And like it or not, there is a hint of the Thought Police in PC...

---

And a shout of Thought Police in the charge of PC. Like the other favorite ploy of lazy right wingers, "slippery slope," it is a content-free way of dispatching a view you disagree with. The charge is usually more manipulative than the language it is levelled against IME.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by tclune:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
And like it or not, there is a hint of the Thought Police in PC...

---

And a shout of Thought Police in the charge of PC. Like the other favorite ploy of lazy right wingers, "slippery slope," it is a content-free way of dispatching a view you disagree with. The charge is usually more manipulative than the language it is levelled against IME.

---

So saying that the Thought Police are wrong is equivalent to being the Thought Police?

As for manipulative, which is more worth of that name - the attempt to ban expression of a wide range of (admittedly offensive) attitudes and beliefs, or the desire to allow free expression of all beliefs?

Don't get me wrong - I'm completely against discrimination. I'm just not convinced that being called an offensive name counts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
It's verbal abuse.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
The term "politically correct" is used to attack people calling for public decency and politeness. It is a shield for cowards who want to be rude, racist, sexist, or whatever, and then when they are called on it, go on the attack and claim that others are merely being "politically correct."

It is a weasel word used by poltroons.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Funny thing is, I've never ever heard anyone say anything along the lines of "you shouldn't say that, it's not politically correct."

Never.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

If that were the case, then we would have to assume that previous generations were far ruder than people today. Is that really the case?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

Don't get me wrong - I'm completely against discrimination. I'm just not convinced that being called an offensive name counts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
So, why are left-wingers - even communist sympathisers - in the United States called liberals?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
It's verbal abuse.

---

Then seek to ban verbal abuse.

Oh, except that would stop people from calling other people "toffs" or "bigots" or "fascists" as well, wouldn't it? And we can't have that - it's only verbal abuse against certain types of people that should be banned, right?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I'm just not convinced that being called an offensive name counts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Yers, we have the right to speak offensively. And the person who is offended also has the right to complain about it. But what we have here is the right-wing using the made up charge of "PC" to try to silence those complaints.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
But anyway, no one ever died from being called a 'toff'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Wow, thanks for dismissing my actual experience of said offensive names there.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Wow, thanks for dismissing my actual experience of said offensive names there.

---

You were bullied at school. So was I. For the whole damn time I was there. My 'crime' was being a bit weaker and a lot smarter than the kids doing the name-calling and punching.

But being weak or clever aren't protected characteristics, so nobody seems to mind when kids like me get bullied, or kill themselves because of it. They expend all their efforts on protecting the victims of "politically incorrect" bullying. We just have to "toughen up" or "ignore it".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Wow, thanks for dismissing my actual experience of said offensive names there.

---

You were bullied at school. So was I. For the whole damn time I was there. My 'crime' was being a bit weaker and a lot smarter than the kids doing the name-calling and punching.

But being weak or clever aren't protected characteristics, so nobody seems to mind when kids like me get bullied, or kill themselves because of it. They expend all their efforts on protecting the victims of "politically incorrect" bullying. We just have to "toughen up" or "ignore it".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
But anyway, no one ever died from being called a 'toff'

---

Well, there were the French aristocrats during the French revolution and the Russian aristocrats during the Russian revolution.

Any name that is used to demonise a group will be used to harm that group if the circumstances exist to bring it about. So using the word "toff" can be, under the right circumstances, as fatal to a human being as any other offensive word you care to think of.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Being 'PC' means not calling a gay person a poofter, not calling a person with Down's Syndrome a mong, not calling a disabled person a cripple. Surely that is a wholly Christian attitude?

---

That's fair enough. But then a situation comes along like where one cannot use the word 'homosexual' when discussing homoseuxality and gay people and the impression can arise that normal, everyday language is being constrained unreasonably. That's the sort of thing that I would call (disparagingly) 'political correctness'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
But anyway, no one ever died from being called a 'toff'

---

Well, there were the French aristocrats during the French revolution and the Russian aristocrats during the Russian revolution.

Any name that is used to demonise a group will be used to harm that group if the circumstances exist to bring it about. So using the word "toff" can be, under the right circumstances, as fatal to a human being as any other offensive word you care to think of.

---

Yes, of course - but those who get called 'toffs' are generally in positions of power. They don't suffer the ramifications of both abuse and lack of power, which say, black people or women have.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
What I don't like about some political correctness in its official guise is its patronising quality. There's sometimes an assumption that minorities - especially ethnic and religious minorities - are offended by certain words or behaviours, without anyone actually making the attempt to get broad-based feedback from these 'communities' as to what they actually find offensive. What it amounts to is uninformed busybodies deciding what they think Muslims, for example, 'should' be offended by. This sort of presumptiousness isn't helpful.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Being 'PC' means not calling a gay person a poofter, not calling a person with Down's Syndrome a mong, not calling a disabled person a cripple. Surely that is a wholly Christian attitude?

---

That's fair enough. But then a situation comes along like where one cannot use the word 'homosexual' when discussing homoseuxality and gay people and the impression can arise that normal, everyday language is being constrained unreasonably. That's the sort of thing that I would call (disparagingly) 'political correctness'.

---

Interesting article - I am quite happy to be called homosexual & gay - I probably object more to the latter than the former but that's just me.

As for poof, queer, bent, carpet muncher, lezza, queen, dyke etc. etc. etc. well I use them all the time so I guess I'm a homophobic, un-pc peep who should know better!

Raises the interesting point though of how come it is acceptable for the 'insider group' to use these terms amongst themselves yet not ok for the 'outsider group' to do this (this came to mind when reading the other thread where the word n*gger came up and I have heard plenty of people on the in-group use the term but get completely outraged when the out-group do... double standards much...?)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:
You have plenty of power these daya and that means you also have a responsability to use it properly and carefully. Welcome to the big league of political power. You are now held to the same standards as white men have been held to because you have the power to damage us.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
But anyway, no one ever died from being called a 'toff'

---

Well, there were the French aristocrats during the French revolution and the Russian aristocrats during the Russian revolution.

Any name that is used to demonise a group will be used to harm that group if the circumstances exist to bring it about. So using the word "toff" can be, under the right circumstances, as fatal to a human being as any other offensive word you care to think of.

---

Yes, of course - but those who get called 'toffs' are generally in positions of power. They don't suffer the ramifications of both abuse and lack of power, which say, black people or women have.

---

These days there is plenty of power in the word "Racist!" and "Homophobe!".

Enough to damage a politicans career or stop children being adopted, even if the allegation is untrue. Which is why I say that such powerful words shouldn't be bandied around carelessly, as it will both devalue the power of the word, and harm innocent people.

Use them where they are warranted by all means, but using them indiscriminately could be as bad as using a gun indiscriminately! If the circumstances are right, death can follow.

You have plenty of power these daya and that means you also have a responsability to use it properly and carefully. Welcome to the big league of political power. You are now held to the same standards as white men have been held to because you have the power to damage us.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
What I don't like about some political correctness in its official guise is its patronising quality. There's sometimes an assumption that minorities - especially ethnic and religious minorities - are offended by certain words or behaviours, without anyone actually making the attempt to get broad-based feedback from these 'communities' as to what they actually find offensive. What it amounts to is uninformed busybodies deciding what they think Muslims, for example, 'should' be offended by. This sort of presumptiousness isn't helpful.

---

This, IMHO&E, is where the current state of PC is in the UK... and does nobody any good except to regulate thought and speech in a very haphazard, ill-defined and basically divisive and discriminatory way.

I'd also add to my acceptance of the belief that the common language is just that, the common language, to be used and abused as people do. Whilst it is Christian to ensure that we treat people with respect and avoid offending and hurting them, we do not need legislation or check-lists to ensure that we do... through the PC agenda we actually demean people by saying that they are sensitive, weak etc. because we need to ensure that they do not hear certain things, that they will be offended etc. It is no great liberalisation, it is oppressive and demeaning to minorities...

The middle-class peeps need to really deal with their internal guilt about things and as commonly as I might say 'grow some'. Living is about enduring things that hurt and occassionally cause pain, we need to 'grow some' and live through it, become stronger people and reason with them, using the force of rhetoric and debate to win people's hearts and minds, not enforce rules from on high...

Political Correctness = Liberalism ---- My Fat A*se!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Nobody has started a 'God Hates Clever People' church. Some groups have special protection, yes, but only because those groups are in particular danger in various ways.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
It's verbal abuse. When I was at secondary school I was bullied for being LGBTQ and the offensive names I was called were absolutely as harmful as the physical and other kinds of abuse. It helps foster an atmosphere of discrimination.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
'Racist' and 'homophobe' aren't enough to get people killed. That's pretty much the standard to judge by if we're talking about discrimination.

---

quote:

---

Yes, of course - but those who get called 'toffs' are generally in positions of power. They don't suffer the ramifications of both abuse and lack of power, which say, black people or women have.

---

quote:

---

And who is the 'you' here? Women? Black people? Gay people? Because none of those groups have institutional power. The fact that sexism, racism and homophobia exist proves this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Indifferently:
What is the nature and purpose of political correctness? Do you perceive it as a threat to Christianity?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
I was referring to the people in charge of PC as middle-class...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
It's verbal abuse. When I was at secondary school I was bullied for being LGBTQ and the offensive names I was called were absolutely as harmful as the physical and other kinds of abuse. It helps foster an atmosphere of discrimination.

---

While I sympathise, most LGBT peeps have a tough time at school, so do those who are clever, a little different etc. etc. - everyone who does not conform to some mid-standard is a source of abuse, it is childhood and should be counteracted by reason and logic, not overly precriptive legislation and tick-boxes by middle-class peeps who have no clue about life!

To go back to your experience, I too had a rough time at school for being gay, but it certainly made me stronger later in life, forced me to live up to being somethign better than people said I was, and in the main was a ctually a source of reality and strength - the world is a horrid, nasty place at times, it will never stop being so and the nasty experiences we have serve to make us stronger... whilst I wish to see them diminished and people accepted for who and what they are, no amount of thought policiing will change that in a liberal way, only in a totalitarian manner...

If you cannot reason and debate with your peers about what they are doing rather than resorting to a piece of beaurocratic legislative junk such as PC you are not making a strong argument for people to change, nor likely to convince them of the rightness of your point of view...

Edit:

I missed your other post, but unless I am mistaken you are still i nschool and therefore do not set the rules in regards to what is and isn't PC - I was referring to the people in charge of PC as middle-class...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Indifferently, I think you've given a clue about your real motivation by lumping attitudes to immigration in with sex and drugs. Many people coming to the Uk over the past 60 or so years have been from theologically and socially conservative Christian backgrounds. In many cities in the past ten years, Catholic and Orthodox churches have been growing because of people coming to the UK from eastern and southern Europe. So I don't see how a liberal attitude towards immigration fits in with your thesis at all.

Perhaps you'd answer this - was it okay for black Caribbean Anglicans to come to this country in the 1950s and 60s and be told by their local CofE churches, "We don't have n*ggers here?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
I was referring to the people in charge of PC as middle-class...

---

How does one get to be 'in charge' of PC?

You may also wish to consider this question, which so far remains unanswered ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Indifferently:
I think a lot of people really don't want certain views to be held, particularly on immigration, sex and drugs because they are deep down extremely insecure about their own moral choices.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
'Racist' and 'homophobe' aren't enough to get people killed. That's pretty much the standard to judge by if we're talking about discrimination.

---

I suggest that i) that's not the standard that should be applied and ii) it's not the standard you yourself would use when considering discrimination.

(I imagine - but correct me if I'm wrong - that you were appalled at the stories that gay couples in the UK have been denied rooms in B&Bs because the B&B owner disapproved of the would-be guests homosexuality. Being denied your choice of holiday destination doesn't kill you, but I imagine you'd consider it discrimination of quite a serious kind.)

quote:

---

Yes, of course - but those who get called 'toffs' are generally in positions of power. They don't suffer the ramifications of both abuse and lack of power, which say, black people or women have.

---

quote:

---

And who is the 'you' here? Women? Black people? Gay people? Because none of those groups have institutional power. The fact that sexism, racism and homophobia exist proves this.

---

What do you mean by this, in particular 'institutional power'? We currently have a woman home secretary who has the power to lock a lot of people up. Until very recently both the prisons minister and the police minister were gay men. Isn't that quite a lot of power?

---

Discrimination happens in non-lethal ways, as in the B&B case. Yes, I was appalled by the discrimination there, but I would consider being killed because of being xyz worse discrimination - because it is worse. How is being killed for something not worse?

Regarding power, yes those individuals have/had a relatively large amount of power - but as a group, women still have less institutional/societal power than men, and LGBTQ people still have less institutional/societal power than straight people. If life were a video game, straight white man would still be the easiest level to play it on.
 

---

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Indifferently:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Indifferently, I think you've given a clue about your real motivation by lumping attitudes to immigration in with sex and drugs. Many people coming to the Uk over the past 60 or so years have been from theologically and socially conservative Christian backgrounds. In many cities in the past ten years, Catholic and Orthodox churches have been growing because of people coming to the UK from eastern and southern Europe. So I don't see how a liberal attitude towards immigration fits in with your thesis at all.

Perhaps you'd answer this - was it okay for black Caribbean Anglicans to come to this country in the 1950s and 60s and be told by their local CofE churches, "We don't have n*ggers here?"

---

Of course not. I have experienced this sort of innuendo before and you are trying to suggest I am beholden to racial bigotry. But it is certainly the case that those who oppose immigration on entirely unrelated grounds can be smeared in this way, so I'm not terribly surprised by your behaviour.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
I was referring to the people in charge of PC as middle-class...

---

How does one get to be 'in charge' of PC?

You may also wish to consider this question, which so far remains unanswered ...

---

By climbing the greasy pole and being appointed to whatever central and local government QUANGO/board that decides what is and what isn't PC...

As for your question, there is little use in lumping them altogether, yet people manage to do this in any number of debates (I refer you to examples in this Hell thread as one example: in this case where all people who cannot accept the O&CoW are lumped by the opposing side into mysoginists...

It is a thing we humans do, we simplify and lump people together to make it easier for us to deal with things I guess regardless of the nuances that differentiate people within that broadstroke picture.

It is not necesarily useful, but it is certainly human and easier...

---

There IS no board that decides on PCness - the acceptability or not of words comes from people themselves. Surprisingly enough, it was black people who decided they didn't want to be called n*****s, not a government agency

I find all the talk about government agencies being in charge of language really weird. Do you honestly think governments are that organised?
 

---

Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Indifferently:
I am not a conservative evangelical. I'm a moral and cultural conservative for all manner of reasons. I belong to the Church of England as it happens.

There are conservative atheists out there, too. Theodore Dalrymple is a fine example.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
I was referring to the people in charge of PC as middle-class...

---

How does one get to be 'in charge' of PC?

You may also wish to consider this question, which so far remains unanswered ...

---

By climbing the greasy pole and being appointed to whatever central and local government QUANGO/board that decides what is and what isn't PC...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Indifferently:
You are a ' s***' human being if you assert orthodox Christian views on morality'? That is precisely what I am talking about. We are actually bad people if we do not assert the new PC moral codes which are now becoming largely compulsory.

I think a lot of people really don't want certain views to be held, particularly on immigration, sex and drugs because they are deep down extremely insecure about their own moral choices.

Is it a coincidence that this moral revolution has accompanied a complete collapse in Christian beliefs and practice in Britain? Of course not - it was the aim all along. They know full well that sexual licence and treating all gods as equally valid Will undermine our faith.

And what makes it worse is that the Church, by embracing it, is putting so many souls in danger. How many people are being explicitly welcomed to the Lord's Table to eat and drink examination to themselves?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Unfortunately, deano, it's the way of the world that when the wheel turns, the formerly powerless are under no obligation to be generous to the formerly powerful.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Indifferently:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Indifferently, I think you've given a clue about your real motivation by lumping attitudes to immigration in with sex and drugs. Many people coming to the Uk over the past 60 or so years have been from theologically and socially conservative Christian backgrounds. In many cities in the past ten years, Catholic and Orthodox churches have been growing because of people coming to the UK from eastern and southern Europe. So I don't see how a liberal attitude towards immigration fits in with your thesis at all.

Perhaps you'd answer this - was it okay for black Caribbean Anglicans to come to this country in the 1950s and 60s and be told by their local CofE churches, "We don't have n*ggers here?"

---

Of course not. I have experienced this sort of innuendo before and you are trying to suggest I am beholden to racial bigotry. But it is certainly the case that those who oppose immigration on entirely unrelated grounds can be smeared in this way, so I'm not terribly surprised by your behaviour.

---

So you would agree that welcoming racially different incomers to a congregation - which is what we tend to do now - is better than rejecting them - which is what we did back then? Where, then, does that leave your idea that the Church is worse and weaker now than it was then?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Sorry, but I refuse to accept that being physically attacked and prevented from having a normal life at school due to my sexuality is in any way some kind of norm to accept. It's not. It should never have happened in the first place. Please explain how I could reason and debate with the people throwing stones and rotten fruit at me (not exaggerating) on my way to school? Bullying should not be considered normal, nor should it be up to those on the receiving end to have to be 'stronger'.

---

If you read carefully, I did not say that it should be acceptable, but I also said that nanny-stating and overly impersonal and detached QUANGOS and boards are not the way to convince people that what they do is wrong.

As I say I sympathise with your position, I refuse to get drawn into who had it worse at school, it does little for the argument and we can all agree that we had a pretty rough time at school and elsewhere in many a guise, in the end it becomes a case of my card beats your card, but this other card beats both our cards which is the wrong way to look at it. I assure you, it may not have seemed like it from your pov, but in comparison to somethings I, and friends of mine dealt with, you've been lucky, it could have been much worse!

Schools should already have rules in place about bullying (though I appreciate that sexuality based bullying is short on attention or consideration, whether as a student or teacher - which is a whole different story altogether...) and outside of school property the school still has a responsibility for your care as do the police... What you describe is physical abuse, not the use of a common language... you are attempting to moved the goal posts in this discussion...

But anyway, your story affirms what I am saying, education is the approach that is needed not pontificating/dictating at people.

If you didn't feel that you could do it, it was the responsibility of your school to ensure that through education people were engaged with and made to understand what was wrong about what they were doing - the school will have only made things worse by telling people what was right and wrong without engagement and discussion about it. What your story illustrates is not a need for greater use of PC legislation and rules but a greater awareness in schools/teachers to this issue and a resoned and mature debate to occur.

I again say I sympathise with your experience, I know that it is hurtful and hard to talk about and remember these things, I was talking from my experience and maybe you have come out of yours differently, but I encourage you to look back and consider how you are/can be made stronger through your experience, letting go of the negativity that still surrounds the time and use that emotion to some practical good for others that are coming after you - as a community all our component parts might not always gel together particularly well (Gs don't like L's, L's don't like T's, nobody likes B's! ) but we take care of our own, it is something that our collective history has instillied in us, and we who have moved on need to find and promote the most effective, mature and reasonable way to ensure that our experiences are not repeated on the next generation in perpetuity.
 

---

Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
I was referring to the people in charge of PC as middle-class...

---

How does one get to be 'in charge' of PC?

You may also wish to consider this question, which so far remains unanswered ...

---

By climbing the greasy pole and being appointed to whatever central and local government QUANGO/board that decides what is and what isn't PC...

---

And what QUANGO or board would that be?

Hint - there's no such fucking thing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Indifferently:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Indifferently:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Indifferently, I think you've given a clue about your real motivation by lumping attitudes to immigration in with sex and drugs. Many people coming to the Uk over the past 60 or so years have been from theologically and socially conservative Christian backgrounds. In many cities in the past ten years, Catholic and Orthodox churches have been growing because of people coming to the UK from eastern and southern Europe. So I don't see how a liberal attitude towards immigration fits in with your thesis at all.

Perhaps you'd answer this - was it okay for black Caribbean Anglicans to come to this country in the 1950s and 60s and be told by their local CofE churches, "We don't have n*ggers here?"

---

Of course not. I have experienced this sort of innuendo before and you are trying to suggest I am beholden to racial bigotry. But it is certainly the case that those who oppose immigration on entirely unrelated grounds can be smeared in this way, so I'm not terribly surprised by your behaviour.

---

So you would agree that welcoming racially different incomers to a congregation - which is what we tend to do now - is better than rejecting them - which is what we did back then? Where, then, does that leave your idea that the Church is worse and weaker now than it was then?

---

Could you please show me the Church policy document which affirms that black people were not welcome in our churches in the 1950s? Surely that is plainly contrary to Canon law? I can show you plenty of documents affirming the church's surrender to PC over a whole smorgasbord of issues.

This isn't about race. This is about a moral revolution. You are derailing this discussion in order to try and smear your opponents.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Indifferently:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
I was referring to the people in charge of PC as middle-class...

---

How does one get to be 'in charge' of PC?

You may also wish to consider this question, which so far remains unanswered ...

---

By climbing the greasy pole and being appointed to whatever central and local government QUANGO/board that decides what is and what isn't PC...

---

And what QUANGO or board would that be?

Hint - there's no such fucking thing.

---

It's called the Equality and Human Rights Commission, actually, and wields a lot of power, as demonstrated by the Christian hoteliers case.

I find your side's quick recourse to foul and abusive language like the f- word very interesting. You seem unmoved by the fact that this is a Christian forum, and not an inner city bus stop or a lavatory wall.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Indifferently:
You seem unmoved by the fact that this is a Christian forum

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Indifferently:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
I was referring to the people in charge of PC as middle-class...

---

How does one get to be 'in charge' of PC?

You may also wish to consider this question, which so far remains unanswered ...

---

By climbing the greasy pole and being appointed to whatever central and local government QUANGO/board that decides what is and what isn't PC...

---

And what QUANGO or board would that be?

Hint - there's no such fucking thing.

---

It's called the Equality and Human Rights Commission, actually, and wields a lot of power, as demonstrated by the Christian hoteliers case.

I find your side's quick recourse to foul and abusive language like the f- word very interesting. You seem unmoved by the fact that this is a Christian forum, and not an inner city bus stop or a lavatory wall.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Indifferently:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Indifferently:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Indifferently, I think you've given a clue about your real motivation by lumping attitudes to immigration in with sex and drugs. Many people coming to the Uk over the past 60 or so years have been from theologically and socially conservative Christian backgrounds. In many cities in the past ten years, Catholic and Orthodox churches have been growing because of people coming to the UK from eastern and southern Europe. So I don't see how a liberal attitude towards immigration fits in with your thesis at all.

Perhaps you'd answer this - was it okay for black Caribbean Anglicans to come to this country in the 1950s and 60s and be told by their local CofE churches, "We don't have n*ggers here?"

---

Of course not. I have experienced this sort of innuendo before and you are trying to suggest I am beholden to racial bigotry. But it is certainly the case that those who oppose immigration on entirely unrelated grounds can be smeared in this way, so I'm not terribly surprised by your behaviour.

---

So you would agree that welcoming racially different incomers to a congregation - which is what we tend to do now - is better than rejecting them - which is what we did back then? Where, then, does that leave your idea that the Church is worse and weaker now than it was then?

---

Could you please show me the Church policy document which affirms that black people were not welcome in our churches in the 1950s? Surely that is plainly contrary to Canon law? I can show you plenty of documents affirming the church's surrender to PC over a whole smorgasbord of issues.

This isn't about race. This is about a moral revolution. You are derailing this discussion in order to try and smear your opponents.

---

My former vicar - a conservative Protestant who shares a lot of views with you - remembers a black family being turned away from a CoE village church and directed to 'a church for your sort' aka the nearest Pentecostal church. This was in the 70s. So contrary to Canon law or not, it happened, and way beyond the 50s.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Indifferently:
You seem unmoved by the fact that this is a Christian forum, and not an inner city bus stop or a lavatory wall.

---

ITTWACW, and I claim my five pounds.

Also, some people seem to think it's more offensive to say "fuck" than it is to discriminate against women and gays.
 

---

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Sorry, but I refuse to accept that being physically attacked and prevented from having a normal life at school due to my sexuality is in any way some kind of norm to accept. It's not. It should never have happened in the first place. Please explain how I could reason and debate with the people throwing stones and rotten fruit at me (not exaggerating) on my way to school? Bullying should not be considered normal, nor should it be up to those on the receiving end to have to be 'stronger'.

---

If you read carefully, I did not say that it should be acceptable, but I also said that nanny-stating and overly impersonal and detached QUANGOS and boards are not the way to convince people that what they do is wrong.

As I say I sympathise with your position, I refuse to get drawn into who had it worse at school, it does little for the argument and we can all agree that we had a pretty rough time at school and elsewhere in many a guise, in the end it becomes a case of my card beats your card, but this other card beats both our cards which is the wrong way to look at it. I assure you, it may not have seemed like it from your pov, but in comparison to somethings I, and friends of mine dealt with, you've been lucky, it could have been much worse!

Schools should already have rules in place about bullying (though I appreciate that sexuality based bullying is short on attention or consideration, whether as a student or teacher - which is a whole different story altogether...) and outside of school property the school still has a responsibility for your care as do the police... What you describe is physical abuse, not the use of a common language... you are attempting to moved the goal posts in this discussion...

But anyway, your story affirms what I am saying, education is the approach that is needed not pontificating/dictating at people.

If you didn't feel that you could do it, it was the responsibility of your school to ensure that through education people were engaged with and made to understand what was wrong about what they were doing - the school will have only made things worse by telling people what was right and wrong without engagement and discussion about it. What your story illustrates is not a need for greater use of PC legislation and rules but a greater awareness in schools/teachers to this issue and a resoned and mature debate to occur.

I again say I sympathise with your experience, I know that it is hurtful and hard to talk about and remember these things, I was talking from my experience and maybe you have come out of yours differently, but I encourage you to look back and consider how you are/can be made stronger through your experience, letting go of the negativity that still surrounds the time and use that emotion to some practical good for others that are coming after you - as a community all our component parts might not always gel together particularly well (Gs don't like L's, L's don't like T's, nobody likes B's! ) but we take care of our own, it is something that our collective history has instillied in us, and we who have moved on need to find and promote the most effective, mature and reasonable way to ensure that our experiences are not repeated on the next generation in perpetuity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Indifferently:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
I was referring to the people in charge of PC as middle-class...

---

How does one get to be 'in charge' of PC?

You may also wish to consider this question, which so far remains unanswered ...

---

By climbing the greasy pole and being appointed to whatever central and local government QUANGO/board that decides what is and what isn't PC...

---

And what QUANGO or board would that be?

Hint - there's no such fucking thing.

---

It's called the Equality and Human Rights Commission, actually, and wields a lot of power, as demonstrated by the Christian hoteliers case.

I find your side's quick recourse to foul and abusive language like the f- word very interesting. You seem unmoved by the fact that this is a Christian forum, and not an inner city bus stop or a lavatory wall.

---

I see. Affording people equality and Human Rights is wicked undermining of Christianity is it now?

And I see we've already got to "I Thought This Was A Christian Website" as well.

Who, exactly, does the f-word "abu5se"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Indifferently:
You seem unmoved by the fact that this is a Christian forum, and not an inner city bus stop or a lavatory wall.

---

ITTWACW, and I claim my five pounds.

Also, some people seem to think it's more offensive to say "fuck" than it is to discriminate against women and gays.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Indifferently:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Indifferently:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Indifferently:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Indifferently, I think you've given a clue about your real motivation by lumping attitudes to immigration in with sex and drugs. Many people coming to the Uk over the past 60 or so years have been from theologically and socially conservative Christian backgrounds. In many cities in the past ten years, Catholic and Orthodox churches have been growing because of people coming to the UK from eastern and southern Europe. So I don't see how a liberal attitude towards immigration fits in with your thesis at all.

Perhaps you'd answer this - was it okay for black Caribbean Anglicans to come to this country in the 1950s and 60s and be told by their local CofE churches, "We don't have n*ggers here?"

---

Of course not. I have experienced this sort of innuendo before and you are trying to suggest I am beholden to racial bigotry. But it is certainly the case that those who oppose immigration on entirely unrelated grounds can be smeared in this way, so I'm not terribly surprised by your behaviour.

---

So you would agree that welcoming racially different incomers to a congregation - which is what we tend to do now - is better than rejecting them - which is what we did back then? Where, then, does that leave your idea that the Church is worse and weaker now than it was then?

---

Could you please show me the Church policy document which affirms that black people were not welcome in our churches in the 1950s? Surely that is plainly contrary to Canon law? I can show you plenty of documents affirming the church's surrender to PC over a whole smorgasbord of issues.

This isn't about race. This is about a moral revolution. You are derailing this discussion in order to try and smear your opponents.

---

My former vicar - a conservative Protestant who shares a lot of views with you - remembers a black family being turned away from a CoE village church and directed to 'a church for your sort' aka the nearest Pentecostal church. This was in the 70s. So contrary to Canon law or not, it happened, and way beyond the 50s.

---

And is it PC that solved that, or common decency? How long before Christian conservatives are turned away from parishes in like manner?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Indifferently:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Indifferently:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
I was referring to the people in charge of PC as middle-class...

---

How does one get to be 'in charge' of PC?

You may also wish to consider this question, which so far remains unanswered ...

---

By climbing the greasy pole and being appointed to whatever central and local government QUANGO/board that decides what is and what isn't PC...

---

And what QUANGO or board would that be?

Hint - there's no such fucking thing.

---

It's called the Equality and Human Rights Commission, actually, and wields a lot of power, as demonstrated by the Christian hoteliers case.

I find your side's quick recourse to foul and abusive language like the f- word very interesting. You seem unmoved by the fact that this is a Christian forum, and not an inner city bus stop or a lavatory wall.

---

I see. Affording people equality and Human Rights is wicked undermining of Christianity is it now?

And I see we've already got to "I Thought This Was A Christian Website" as well.

Who, exactly, does the f-word "abu5se"?

---

Its usage is a demonstration of power and privilege. You have used it in this debate because you know full well that conservatives don't like its sexually explicit vulgarity. And you do so anyway.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Indifferently:
Its usage is a demonstration of power and privilege. You have used it in this debate because you know full well that conservatives don't like its sexually explicit vulgarity. And you do so anyway.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
As said upthread, the idea that government agencies and quangos state what language is and isn't PC is bollocks.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Indifferently:
Debates are far more civilized on Catholic Answers Forum.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
As said upthread, the idea that government agencies and quangos state what language is and isn't PC is bollocks.

---

I think you saw this link because it was in the quotes when you replied to something I'd written back on the first page. If not, perhaps give it a read.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
As said upthread, the idea that government agencies and quangos state what language is and isn't PC is bollocks.

---

I think you saw this link because it was in the quotes when you replied to something I'd written back on the first page. If not, perhaps give it a read.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Indifferently:
The government does indeed enforce PC. I cannot begin to name the number of times I have had to refuse to reveal my sexual 'orientation' or 'gender identity' to some government crank.

---

And I bet they wanted to know your name, and sometimes your address too! So they're also enforcing nominal correctness and geographical correctness.
 

---

Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
The idea that homosexual is an offensive term comes from gay people themselves, though. The government reacting to that (as is the case in the article) isn't the same as the government creating the offense.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Indifferently:
Its usage is a demonstration of power and privilege. You have used it in this debate because you know full well that conservatives don't like its sexually explicit vulgarity. And you do so anyway.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
The idea that homosexual is an offensive term comes from gay people themselves, though. The government reacting to that (as is the case in the article) isn't the same as the government creating the offense.

---

And as said up-thread, I don't remember being consulted on this fact of whether it is offensive to me or not. If some suited, middle-class, hetereosexual decides this fact then what right do they have to do that. if some minority section of the community has decided this, then what right do they have.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
The idea that homosexual is an offensive term comes from gay people themselves, though. The government reacting to that (as is the case in the article) isn't the same as the government creating the offense.

---

And as said up-thread, I don't remember being consulted on this fact of whether it is offensive to me or not. If some suited, middle-class, hetereosexual decides this fact then what right do they have to do that. if some minority section of the community has decided this, then what right do they have.

I find the name Jade offensive... I therefore demand that it be classed as un-PC to use the word Jade because I find it offensive is not a good enough reason to restrict people's freedom to use the English language. The minority/non-member of the community does not have the authority, or the right, to decide what I, or others, find offensive. Any attempt to decide for an entire group of people what language is acceptable and what is not is not going to change the underlying feelings at play here, nor is it going to help towards fairness and reconciliation - it is a divisive strategy that alienates more people than it helps.

---

How do you know the government official or civil servant is middle-class and heterosexual?

In any case, it's not legislation, it's just a memo to say that a significant number of gay people find this word offensive, so don't use this word. That's it. We restrict our language all the time depending on who we're addressing and what's appropriate for the situation. Sorry, just failing to see why not using one word in an official capacity (no one is banning the civil servants from saying homosexual in private) is such a terrible injustice.
 

---

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
I agree. And furthermore, in the example I've given, it seems quite clear that the government has stated what language is and is not allowable [for use by its officers when conducting official business].

---

Fixed your quote for you. You're welcome!
 

---

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
I agree. And furthermore, in the example I've given, it seems quite clear that the government has stated what language is and is not allowable [for use by its officers when conducting official business].

---

Fixed your quote for you. You're welcome!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
I agree. And furthermore, in the example I've given, it seems quite clear that the government has stated what language is and is not allowable [for use by its officers when conducting official business].

---

Fixed your quote for you. You're welcome!

---

That's very kind of you. I think my initial point still stands.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:

If some suited, middle-class, hetereosexual decides this fact then what right do they have to do that.

---

How do you know the government official or civil servant is middle-class and heterosexual?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
I agree. And furthermore, in the example I've given, it seems quite clear that the government has stated what language is and is not allowable [for use by its officers when conducting official business].

---

Fixed your quote for you. You're welcome!

---

That's very kind of you. I think my initial point still stands.

---

Which was what? That the state shouldn't care if its officers conduct themselves in a verbally abusive way towards citizens? (Not saying that this particular case qualifies, but that it's an obvious end-result of your "the state can't have standards for is officers" argument.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:

If some suited, middle-class, hetereosexual decides this fact then what right do they have to do that.

---

How do you know the government official or civil servant is middle-class and heterosexual?

---

Most people aren't gay, so a civil servant is more likely to be heterosexual than not. I would say that the role of drafting official guidance is a white collar post and so the holder of that post is likely to be middle class (lower middle, I would've thought).

However, SM describes the civil servant as 'suited'. I'd love that to be the case but, given the slovenly standards of dress you see nowadays, including in the civil service, I suspect that's wishful thinking on SM's part.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:

If some suited, middle-class, hetereosexual decides this fact then what right do they have to do that.

---

How do you know the government official or civil servant is middle-class and heterosexual?

---

Most people aren't gay, so a civil servant is more likely to be heterosexual than not. I would say that the role of drafting official guidance is a white collar post and so the holder of that post is likely to be middle class (lower middle, I would've thought).

However, SM describes the civil servant as 'suited'. I'd love that to be the case but, given the slovenly standards of dress you see nowadays, including in the civil service, I suspect that's wishful thinking on SM's part.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Which was what? That the state shouldn't care if its officers conduct themselves in a verbally abusive way towards citizens? (Not saying that this particular case qualifies, but that it's an obvious end-result of your "the state can't have standards for is officers" argument.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Most people are bisexual, not heterosexual. Class isn't easily defined admittedly, but I always thought it was about what your parents did for a living. I still think the idea of some kind of straight, middle-class cabal organising what words LGBTQ people use about themselves is bizarre, though. Look at tumblr or twitter or a blogging platform - plenty of LGBTQ people are deciding for themselves what they prefer to be called, and funnily enough homosexual (and other 'non-PC' terms) aren't amongst them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The crazy thing about the whole "homosexual" or "gay" thing is, I could swear that not that long ago we were all being told not to say "gay", and instead to use "homosexual".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Most people are bisexual, not heterosexual. Class isn't easily defined admittedly, but I always thought it was about what your parents did for a living. I still think the idea of some kind of straight, middle-class cabal organising what words LGBTQ people use about themselves is bizarre, though. Look at tumblr or twitter or a blogging platform - plenty of LGBTQ people are deciding for themselves what they prefer to be called, and funnily enough homosexual (and other 'non-PC' terms) aren't amongst them.

---

And I guess that says more about the types of circle you move in than anything that might be construed as fact.

If it is in fact true that hte community is making a decision not to use those words then le the community itself stand up and make the charge for other peopel not to use the words when directing them towards members of the community.

It is not for you or I, or infact the government in legislation or official memos to determine anything, it is for the community at alrge to determine it, and as Iwell kow having worked for them, Stonewall does not speak for the majority of the community on several issues, this being one of them.

The energy you put into your desire to enforce language control and make decisions for other people would be better spent actually doing something to combat the real homophobia nad discrimination that exists out there, like the restrictions on giving blood.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The crazy thing about the whole "homosexual" or "gay" thing is, I could swear that not that long ago we were all being told not to say "gay", and instead to use "homosexual".

In a similar vein, I could swear that over the last twenty years the "PC" term for people with black skin (I think that's what we're supposed to say these days) has gone from "blacks" to "coloureds" to "people of colour" back to "blacks" before settling (for the time being) on what I said initially. (precise order and phrasings may not be accurate and/or UK-specific).

It wouldn't hurt perceptions of PC if its proponents could agree on what's acceptable and bloody well stick to it, rather than continually shifting the goalposts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I wasn't aware I had to submit a portfolio before I'm allowed to speak about LGBTQ issues.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:


It wouldn't hurt perceptions of PC if its proponents could agree on what's acceptable and bloody well stick to it, rather than continually shifting the goalposts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Which was what? That the state shouldn't care if its officers conduct themselves in a verbally abusive way towards citizens? (Not saying that this particular case qualifies, but that it's an obvious end-result of your "the state can't have standards for is officers" argument.)

---

That's a fair point. The civil service is a big beast employing lots of people and I wouldn't want the state to prohibit the use of ordinary, everyday language by its staff. Of course civil servants should be polite, that should go without saying.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
The prohibition of non-offensive* words that are in everyday use seems to me to be over-prescriptive.

*I would say that objectively the h-word is perhaps a little dated nowadays but certainly not inherently offensive. As we can see on this thread, there's some disagreement about that which I suppose we're never going to settle.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
There's no such thing as a universally acceptable term.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The crazy thing about the whole "homosexual" or "gay" thing is, I could swear that not that long ago we were all being told not to say "gay", and instead to use "homosexual".

In a similar vein, I could swear that over the last twenty years the "PC" term for people with black skin (I think that's what we're supposed to say these days) has gone from "blacks" to "coloureds" to "people of colour" back to "blacks" before settling (for the time being) on what I said initially. (precise order and phrasings may not be accurate and/or UK-specific).

It wouldn't hurt perceptions of PC if its proponents could agree on what's acceptable and bloody well stick to it, rather than continually shifting the goalposts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I wasn't aware I had to submit a portfolio before I'm allowed to speak about LGBTQ issues.

---

This might sound like a rather sarcastic question, but I am genuinely curious. Aren't you missing a few letters there? I thought we were up to LGBTTQQIAAP now? Do you only identify with / support / like / champion / speak about some of those groups or not others, or is the chain of letters abbreviated for convenience's sake?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
There's no such thing as a universally acceptable term.

---

In which case nobody has any right to say what is and is not acceptable as has occured in the linked to article and for which you are arguing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Which was what? That the state shouldn't care if its officers conduct themselves in a verbally abusive way towards citizens? (Not saying that this particular case qualifies, but that it's an obvious end-result of your "the state can't have standards for is officers" argument.)

---

That's a fair point. The civil service is a big beast employing lots of people and I wouldn't want the state to prohibit the use of ordinary, everyday language by its staff. Of course civil servants should be polite, that should go without saying.

---

Should it? As you point out, civil service is a large bureaucracy, and it functions largely by rules. I can easily foresee a situation coming up where an agent of the state musters out the argument that "there's no rule against calling people racial slurs" if it truly does "go without saying".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
No - the article is discussing an UNacceptable term. There are universally (or near-universally) unacceptable terms.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
Perhaps I wasn't expressing myself clearly enough. Apologies. When I wrote 'it goes without saying', I meant that it should be obvious that civil servants should be polite. That was in response to your comment that there is a limit to the state-can't-have-standards comment you made. Yes, of course the state can have standards and these include, inter alia, being polite to members of the public.

Although one would hope that civil servants don't need to be told to be polite, I would have no objection to them being told to be.

Against that background, the use of a racial slur (and I'm assuming by that term the use of a word that is widely condemned as being offensive) by a civil servant would fall short of that standard of politeness. However, I'm not sure whether it is possible or feasible to have a definitive list of words that are acceptable and a definitive list of words that are unacceptable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:
Language changes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:
I wonder how many of the people who get exercised about this would be against businesses teaching their staff how to address customers to make them feel welcome and respected? It strikes me that this should cut across political divisions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
Not particularly exercised, but that is not what we are discussing. Teaching staff to be polite and customer-service focussed is one thing, but for the state, or an agent of the state in what ever capacity to determine a list of what is and is not acceptable is a different matter.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
Not particularly exercised, but that is not what we are discussing. Teaching staff to be polite and customer-service focussed is one thing, but for the state, or an agent of the state in what ever capacity to determine a list of what is and is not acceptable is a different matter.

---

To tie this in with my discussion with Anglican't, why can't the state control its own actions in this regard?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
So if I'm understanding you correctly, your objection to your cited article isn't that you disagree that the state shouldn't have standards for how its officers interact with the public, but rather that in this particular case the state has applied a standard that is different than the standard you would put in place if you were running things?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

How long does anyone here think it'll be before someone comes up with the idea that the phrase "same-sex marriage" is offensive to gays, and therefore we can't use it any more?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
Not particularly exercised, but that is not what we are discussing. Teaching staff to be polite and customer-service focussed is one thing, but for the state, or an agent of the state in what ever capacity to determine a list of what is and is not acceptable is a different matter.

---

To tie this in with my discussion with Anglican't, why can't the state control its own actions in this regard?

---

Because the state is not a private business, and so therefore the states actions at any level have wider implications than simply ensuring a friendly, customer focussed service.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Indifferently:
You are derailing this discussion in order to try and smear your opponents.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
One example in going back to the OP. Calling gays "queer" is offensive - but calling heterosexuals "straight" (or even "hetersexual") as you've done on another thread is as offensive to them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
The whole [PC] thing is made up. Its the rich and powerful pretending to be victims.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:
Use [words like 'racist'] where they are warranted by all means, but using them indiscriminately could be as bad as using a gun indiscriminately! If the circumstances are right, death can follow.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
The prohibition of non-offensive* words that are in everyday use seems to me to be over-prescriptive.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
Because the state is not a private business, and so therefore the states actions at any level have wider implications than simply ensuring a friendly, customer focussed service.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I mean, come on! If I, a paid-up supporter of equal rights for all races, sexes and sexualities, am so bloody confused about what the acceptable terms are supposed to be then what hope is there that someone who isn't so positively inclined will even try to keep up?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
No - the article is discussing an UNacceptable term. There are universally (or near-universally) unacceptable terms.

---

You see what I did - you made a statement and I looked at it from, the opposite point of view - there is not a universally unaccepted term.

If there are no universally accepted terms then we should ensure no terms are used at all, because we might offend somebody which is absurd - therefore, we might as well not prescribe what is and isn't acceptable and allow a majority voice of the communities to stand up and say what is and isn't acceptable.

It is demeaning and patronising for others to do it on the communities behalf - it is a form of colonialism if you like, of subserviance and slavery - the community cannot do anything for itself, it is too weak, illogical and unorganised to do anything itself.

Do you realise how demeaning it is to be told by others what is and isn't acceptable within your community?

As for the LGBT thing - the letters appear in different orders depending on the organisation and where you are in the world it seems, and yes there are lots of other letters after the LGBTQ bit, (I put LGBT for eases sake) but barely anybody remebers what they stand for and they invariably get dropped.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:
Language changes.

---

Not that quickly. Not without it being deliberately screwed with.

How long does anyone here think it'll be before someone comes up with the idea that the phrase "same-sex marriage" is offensive to gays, and therefore we can't use it any more? For that matter, how long will it be until someone tries to tell me that the use of the word "gays" (which has been declared to be the acceptable term on this very thread, this very day) in that sentence is offensive?

I mean, come on! If I, a paid-up supporter of equal rights for all races, sexes and sexualities, am so bloody confused about what the acceptable terms are supposed to be then what hope is there that someone who isn't so positively inclined will even try to keep up?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

How long does anyone here think it'll be before someone comes up with the idea that the phrase "same-sex marriage" is offensive to gays, and therefore we can't use it any more?

---

I've read that "equal marriage" is preferable to same-sex marriage. "Same-sex" could be offensive to couples who are same sex by birth, but one of them does not identify as that sex. i.e. the implication is we ought not to categorise other people's relationships without knowing how they see themselves. "Equal marriage" avoids this.

I've never heard anyone actually take offence at the phrase SSM, so I'm not too careful about which phrase I use. My level of care would change if I did actually cause someone offence, which I would be sorry to do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I mean, come on! If I, a paid-up supporter of equal rights for all races, sexes and sexualities, am so bloody confused about what the acceptable terms are supposed to be then what hope is there that someone who isn't so positively inclined will even try to keep up?

---

But here's the deal, Marvin: a decent person, when told that some term they have used is offensive, will say, "Ooops, I didn't realize that, I apologize, what should I say?" and not "HELP HELP I'M BEING OPPRESSED!"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I mean, come on! If I, a paid-up supporter of equal rights for all races, sexes and sexualities, am so bloody confused about what the acceptable terms are supposed to be then what hope is there that someone who isn't so positively inclined will even try to keep up?

---

But here's the deal, Marvin: a decent person, when told that some term they have used is offensive, will say, "Ooops, I didn't realize that, I apologize, what should I say?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
But here's the deal, Marvin: a decent person, when told that some term they have used is offensive, will say, "Ooops, I didn't realize that, I apologize, what should I say?" and not "HELP HELP I'M BEING OPPRESSED!"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:
Language changes.

---

Not that quickly. Not without it being deliberately screwed with.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Yes. Having the right to call gay people 'fucking poofters' is a right you should have. Who cares what the queers think? They're not important.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Yes, but that's the thing. It's starting to feel like the acceptable terms keep being changed precisely so that I'll have to keep apologising over and over again.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
But here's the deal, Marvin: a decent person, when told that some term they have used is offensive, will say, "Ooops, I didn't realize that, I apologize, what should I say?" and not "HELP HELP I'M BEING OPPRESSED!"

---

Is the test to be applied a wholly subjective one, then?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
But here's the deal, Marvin: a decent person, when told that some term they have used is offensive, will say, "Ooops, I didn't realize that, I apologize, what should I say?" and not "HELP HELP I'M BEING OPPRESSED!"

---

Is the test to be applied a wholly subjective one, then?

---

Would that be bad? Why?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
But here's the deal, Marvin: a decent person, when told that some term they have used is offensive, will say, "Ooops, I didn't realize that, I apologize, what should I say?" and not "HELP HELP I'M BEING OPPRESSED!"

---

Is the test to be applied a wholly subjective one, then?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
Now, the immediate need to be polite might mean that you call him 'a Chosen one' to his face, but given the range of acceptable and generally accepted terms in the English language that can be used to describe a person in his position, should he have the right to reject them all and impose his own term? I suggest not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
Let's suppose that such a person, when addressed, said all of these terms (including 'gay') were offensive and that he wanted to be known as 'a Chosen One'.

---

That would be so cool! Can I be "Admiral of Spandex"?

I'll leave you all to bleach your own minds after that mental image....

Seriously, you have a point, except that that's not how words work. In your example, "Chosen One" simply wouldn't get any kind of lingustic foothold. There would have to be a whole bunch of people calling themselves "Chosen Ones" before it would stand a chance of catching on. But language is difficult: I have gay friends who all but grind their teeth when I refer to myself as "queer". Conversely, I laugh myself sick (inwardly, of course) when some lugubrious fifty-year-old with an expression like a bulldog chewing a wasp calls himself "gay".
 

---

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Yes, but that's the thing. It's starting to feel like the acceptable terms keep being changed precisely so that I'll have to keep apologising over and over again.

---

I'm afraid you're going to have to lose the conspiracy-theory mindset and just accept that things change rapidly these days.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Indifferently:
What is the nature and purpose of political correctness?

---

quote:

---

Do you perceive it as a threat to Christianity?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
That would be so cool! Can I be "Admiral of Spandex"?

I'll leave you all to bleach your own minds after that mental image....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Yes, but that's the thing. It's starting to feel like the acceptable terms keep being changed precisely so that I'll have to keep apologising over and over again.

---

I'm afraid you're going to have to lose the conspiracy-theory mindset and just accept that things change rapidly these days.

---

But those rapid changes cause people to actually stop apologising, which is what those feeling they are being oppressed are complaining about, that nobody apologises.

Stop changing things and perhaps the apologies will come.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Seriously, you have a point, except that that's not how words work.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:
But those rapid changes cause people to actually stop apologising, which is what those feeling they are being oppressed are complaining about, that nobody apologises.

Stop changing things and perhaps the apologies will come.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by gorpo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Of course christians don´t have uniform beliefs on sexual ethics, but that is precisely what the politically correct party is requiring of all christians.

---

I was countering Indifferently's claim that their own view of Christian sexual morality is what Christians should believe. My liberal view of sexual morality doesn't make me less Christian. And the 'politically correct party' has no issue with private beliefs - it's when private beliefs turn into public speech. No one is going to be stopped from believing that particular sexual activities are sinful, but it is wrong for them to publicly talk about those people going to Hell, particularly marginalised groups such as LGBTQ people.

---

So you´re sayng it´s okay that other christians believe in something different then you, as long as they remain silent about it?

Being allowed to express my opinion is not a "privilege", unless people of different opinions were forbidden to express theirs.

For example, 7th day adventists believe its sinful to work at saturdays. It doesn´t matter if they have any point in what they say, but they should be allowed to say it whenever they want. It doesn´t matter if some saturday worker might feel offended by the idea of going to hell. Religions have their sets of beliefs, and if they water it down in order to not be offensive to the wider society, then they have nothing specific.

Some religions do hold the belief that sex between people of the same gender is sinful. That includes historic christianity. In a secular country, they cannot force the population to abide by their principles, but they surely have the right to preach it to whoever wants to hear and/or believe it.

And your last sentence is what it's about - there is no problem with preaching said beliefs to people who want to hear that preaching. Telling strangers that they're going to Hell for xyz is what is unacceptable here. More than anything else, it's just rude - and 'being PC' is really just about minimum standards of decency. Unfortunately for historic Christianity, it has often not met minimum standards of decency and treating others as fellow human beings.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:


Do evangelicals who are not YEC, KJV-only, PSA-only, dispensationalist, etc., have the right to demand that they not be called fundamentalist? [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Can I be "Admiral of Spandex"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl:
As long as the majority aren't the ones being called names or mistreated, they'd prefer not having to change at all. In fact, this thread is a great example of people not seeing what the big deal is at all - except if they're being inconvenienced by having to change their words. Who cares if others are being hurt?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Net Spinster:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Indifferently:
I am not a conservative evangelical. I'm a moral and cultural conservative for all manner of reasons. I belong to the Church of England as it happens.

There are conservative atheists out there, too. Theodore Dalrymple is a fine example.

---

I think you'll find atheists all over the map. There are a lot of culturally and morally conservative atheists out there. What you probably won't find is theologically conservative Christian atheists (but I can probably find some liturgically conservative Christian atheists).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl:
As long as the majority aren't the ones being called names or mistreated, they'd prefer not having to change at all. In fact, this thread is a great example of people not seeing what the big deal is at all - except if they're being inconvenienced by having to change their words. Who cares if others are being hurt?

---

Some members of the majority, sure. But the fact that it is no longer socially acceptable among most people to use derogatory terms for minority ethnic and racial groups and for people with disabilities shows that most of us have changed, in a fairly short period of time and willingly. Most of us in fact don't need to be told more than once that something is offensive in order to be willing to change, though breaking habits may take some time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl:
Having grown up during a time when it was perfectly acceptable to call disabled people derogatory names

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by gorpo:
It is completely stupid to call someone a fundamentalist christian for believing in stuff that christians always believed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl:
Having grown up during a time when it was perfectly acceptable to call disabled people derogatory names

---

How old are you? I'm 53 and can't remember a time when it was acceptable. My dad would have taken the belt to me, no two ways about it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:


Stop changing things and perhaps the apologies will come.

---

Identifying the people who are 'changing things' would be a first step. It's language and culture, generally, that is changing: King Canute would know that there isn't much anybody can do about that any more than the tide.
 

---

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 
A few months ago I overheard a conversation between two old men in their eighties, in which one of them referred to homosexuals as “sodomites”.

Had I been a party to that conversation, I would have assured the speaker that I agreed with his conviction that the Bible disapproved of homosexual behaviour, but would have objected to his terminology.

If he had accused me of political correctness (as he might well have done, from the little bit I know about him) I would have pointed out that my objection had nothing to do with PC, but was based on the considerations that the term is unwise, inaccurate, gratuitously offensive and guaranteed to block communication.

If, on the other hand, he or anyone else had used the expression in public, perhaps through the media, and had been threatened with prosecution for doing so, I would have most certainly have objected to the political correctness of the reaction, ie heavy-handed repression by meddling bureaucrats to enforce the invalid principle that everyone (with the exception of a few groups, such as Roman Catholics) has the legal right to be protected from having their feelings hurt in the give and take of debate in the public square.

The issue of power, of course, would not have come into it.

The idea that the old man, and those who agreed with him that it was PC to object to the use of a word such as “sodomite”, would have been in a position of power vis a vis the pro-gay sentiment now entrenched in schools, universities, the media, the public service, the mainstream Protestant churches, the entertainment industry and elsewhere, is ludicrous.

In other words, accusations of PC are sometimes appropriate and sometimes not, just as they are sometimes expressions of power differentials and sometimes not.

Blanket disapproval of the use of the expression “political correctness” is just as mindless as throwing it around indiscriminately.
 

---

Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I mean, come on! If I, a paid-up supporter of equal rights for all races, sexes and sexualities, am so bloody confused about what the acceptable terms are supposed to be then what hope is there that someone who isn't so positively inclined will even try to keep up?

---

But here's the deal, Marvin: a decent person, when told that some term they have used is offensive, will say, "Ooops, I didn't realize that, I apologize, what should I say?"

---

Yes, but that's the thing. It's starting to feel like the acceptable terms keep being changed precisely so that I'll have to keep apologising over and over again.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl:
Having grown up during a time when it was perfectly acceptable to call disabled people derogatory names

---

How old are you? I'm 53 and can't remember a time when it was acceptable. My dad would have taken the belt to me, no two ways about it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm not sure it necessarily follows that the state should never try to make its interactions with its citizens "friendly", or at least free of blatant slurs. There's a leap of logic I'm not following here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
But, this is what I am saying - the term is being challenged *by gay people*. It isn't coming from outside.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
And exactly how much does an apology cost you?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
You are humiliated if you say "sorry, I didn't know that term was offensive, I'll remember that in future?"

Really? How does that work?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
You are humiliated if you say "sorry, I didn't know that term was offensive, I'll remember that in future?"

Really? How does that work?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
And exactly how much does an apology cost you?

---

For a white, heterosexual man, it costs a lot. This is actually the true, real heart of the matter. It costs a lot of humiliation, loss of pride, the feeling of being the lesser man, disgrace, a percieved weakening of status and stature in the eyes of others.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
And exactly how much does an apology cost you?

---

For a white, heterosexual man, it costs a lot. This is actually the true, real heart of the matter. It costs a lot of humiliation, loss of pride, the feeling of being the lesser man, disgrace, a percieved weakening of status and stature in the eyes of others.

---

This is actually bollocks. This is actually the problem. This is so far from actual Christian practice, I can actually hear the Baby Jesus crying.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I wouldn't say it's humiliating, but it's certainly frustrating. I get the feeling sometimes that what people really want me to apologise for is being a straight white male.

Of course, that comment will be summarily dismissed on this thread because as a straight white male, my feelings don't count for shit. But if someone from any other social grouping feels like something is sexist/racist/etc against them, you'd better believe that means it's true...

---

You sexist, homophobic, racist, colonialist, monster!

edit: Sorry, I'm really bored at work, being bored means I get a little childish occassionally.

[ 18. January 2013, 10:41: Message edited by: Sergius-Melli ]
 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
You are humiliated if you say "sorry, I didn't know that term was offensive, I'll remember that in future?"

Really? How does that work?

---

When the goal posts change on an inconsistant basis, as deano and others are pointing out, and you become forced to continue to apologise over and over again for different phrases and words, I imagine humiliation factors in there...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I wouldn't say it's humiliating, but it's certainly frustrating. I get the feeling sometimes that what people really want me to apologise for is being a straight white male.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I wouldn't say it's humiliating, but it's certainly frustrating. I get the feeling sometimes that what people really want me to apologise for is being a straight white male.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Cry me a river, Deano. I'm a white, middle class, straight indigenous male, and I really, really don't know what you're getting this "having to apologise for being what we are" from. Really, really don't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Cry me a river, Deano. I'm a white, middle class, straight indigenous male, and I really, really don't know what you're getting this "having to apologise for being what we are" from. Really, really don't. Nor do I find myself inadvertently using offensive language I have to apologise for either. When did you last have to apolotise? What did you say? Does this really happen or are people making a backlash out of fuck all, as it seems to me?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tclune:
In Deano's defense, I'm a straight white male and I don't much care for him myself. I can only imagine the distaste he must engender in those who have less in common with him...

--Tom Clune

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Cry me a river, Deano. I'm a white, middle class, straight indigenous male, and I really, really don't know what you're getting this "having to apologise for being what we are" from. Really, really don't. Nor do I find myself inadvertently using offensive language I have to apologise for either. When did you last have to apolotise? What did you say? Does this really happen or are people making a backlash out of fuck all, as it seems to me?

---

I said that "IT APPEARED" that we were having to apoligise for what we are, by chaging what is and what isn't currently defined as "politically correct".

I also said that we were never explicitly asked for that apology.

Like you I don't use offensive language to deliberately insult people who I work with or meet daily. I don't use those offensive words that we all know (Except for ken in Hell, but that's not this thread). I don't have to apologise for it every day. But when I see someone in the media being criticised for being non-PC, when the offense has been caused by a redefinition of language, and they have to apologise, I feel that it reflects on me as a straight, white man, to a degreee, and I feel some of that shame.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Well, now you know, so you won't be using it, because as you've said you don't go around offending people, so there's no reason you should identify with someone less thoughtful who does.

You say "sooner or later" - i.e. it hasn't actually happened yet. I suggest that if it happens, it'll happen if and when the term is generally taken to be offensive and anyone could reasonably be expected to know that, like with "kike", "wog", "mong", "retarded" etc. etc.

The goalposts tend to move when people take an acceptable term and make it an insult - q.v. "mental", "spastic". It's not like suddenly someone decided they fancied a change so put a red mark next to "spastic"; rather people with cerebral palsy got rather fed up with a term that was generally being used to mean "idiot". I daresay other cases could be cited.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:
Pick a word, let the straight, white males know what it is, and stick to it. We don't do so good with curved, fuzzy thinking and change. It has to be clear, concise and fixed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:
I have no desire to use any word that will upset anyone in the LBGT community - none at all.

...

What we should be doing is not caving in and weakly giving the word over to those people, but to protect the word.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:
I have no desire to use any word that will upset anyone in the LBGT community - none at all.

Karl, your theorem isn't fully worked out yet. The word gay is now used as term of abuse. I agree.

The point is not the word itself, but that homosexulaity itself is IN SOME QUARTERS of society seen as something to be ashamed of, and therefore the words used to describe them are co-opted and used as abuse.

What we should be doing is not caving in and weakly giving the word over to those people, but to protect the word.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I wouldn't say it's humiliating, but it's certainly frustrating. I get the feeling sometimes that what people really want me to apologise for is being a straight white male.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:
Long before there was PC there was good manners and kindness, which should have kept anyone from calling anyone else a name intended to hurt.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
You are humiliated if you say "sorry, I didn't know that term was offensive, I'll remember that in future?"

Really? How does that work?

---

When the goal posts change on an inconsistant basis, as deano and others are pointing out, and you become forced to continue to apologise over and over again for different phrases and words, I imagine humiliation factors in there...

---

Yet the funny thing is, here I am, white male, and yet I don't find that I'm having to apologise over and over again. Why is that?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:
However, where does that leave me when a member of the LBGT community tells me that the word is offensive as it has now been tainted as an abusive term?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
You are humiliated if you say "sorry, I didn't know that term was offensive, I'll remember that in future?"

Really? How does that work?

---

When the goal posts change on an inconsistant basis, as deano and others are pointing out, and you become forced to continue to apologise over and over again for different phrases and words, I imagine humiliation factors in there...

---

Yet the funny thing is, here I am, white male, and yet I don't find that I'm having to apologise over and over again. Why is that?

---

I've been following this thread for a while but would like to chip in at this point. Like KLB, I'm not finding myself having to apologise repeatedly for using words others find offensive, let alone for simply being a straight white man.

And I'm struggling to imagine any humiliation in saying something like 'Sorry, I didn't realise you'd find what I said offensive. What words would you rather I use?' I don't get it, sorry...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:
Ah but that presuposes that the offended party has been quite discreet and courteous in correcting what was obviously a simple misunderstanding, rather than a diatribe shouted around an office full of peers that paints the person as the worst kind of bigot under the sun.

One way is fine, the other gets a reaction. It's the second way that I'm debating.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm not sure it necessarily follows that the state should never try to make its interactions with its citizens "friendly", or at least free of blatant slurs. There's a leap of logic I'm not following here.

---

People who go into customer service focussed jobs should already have an amount of common sense and ability to perform their tasks politely.

No company I have engaged with has ever produced a list of words for it's staff to avoid using, or to use instead of other words

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
And exactly how much does an apology cost you?

---

For a white, heterosexual man, it costs a lot.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:
Let’s hope the companies you’ve worked for are well-acquainted with employees’ linguistic habits pre-hire, then, or they may be open to legal issues. My company provides a certain amount of pre-canned training, and I reinforce this with my staff, about appropriate and inappropriate terminology to use with our clients. They’re expressly forbidden to use terms ranging from “cripple” to “retarded.” They’re required to use “people first” language – “people with disabilities,” not “disabled people,” for example.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
If something someone says offends you, you tell that person and they stop using said word or phrase around you out of politeness and respect.

---

quote:

---

Ok, I have seen the negative side of this in another place on the internet - a blog where the comments were dominated by a little cabal of more-liberal-than-thou perpetually offended people who had a very extensive list of terms that were supposedly offensive.

---

Just think: before the internet, this little hobby-ist cabal would have had to be content with a wee and twee localized group. Now they can connect with pea brains from all around the globe. Hazzah.
 

---

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:
They’re required to use “people first” language – “people with disabilities,” not “disabled people,” for example.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
If something someone says offends you, you tell that person and they stop using said word or phrase around you out of politeness and respect.

---

Good - can we get rid of the word "straight" then, with reference to sexuality. I am content to be defined by lots of things in lots of ways but not by my sexuality.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Snags:
The point Miss Amanda is illustrating is one of emphasis, and is one of the 'little things' that I'd actually say is quite profound (compared to a lot of this stuff, which seems to miss the point all too readily in a 'letter rather than spirit' way).

"A person with disabilities" puts the emphasis on the personhood, then qualifies it by saying they also have disabilities.

"A disabled person" puts the emphasis on the disability, and further encourages a view that they are in some way broken, incomplete, or 'less' of a person because of it.

It really is subtle, but it is also quite powerful. When people "go PC" in meetings I normally end up rolling my eyes and biting my tongue, but for this example it just seems like a no-brainer way to use language positively. A bit like when leading a service saying "Stand if you are able" rather than "Now stand as we sing" etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Good - can we get rid of the word "straight" then, with reference to sexuality. I am content to be defined by lots of things in lots of ways but not by my sexuality.

---

I apologise if I have ever referred to you directly by your sexuality in the past, sometimes it will be difficult for me not to do so as in certain discussions I may be talking in a general rather than an individual manner where it is a case of talking about one group of people as opposed to another group of people and that common denominator difference might be their sexuality, but I will avoid using that word when in direct conversation with you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl:
Having grown up during a time when it was perfectly acceptable to call disabled people derogatory names

---

How old are you? I'm 53 and can't remember a time when it was acceptable. My dad would have taken the belt to me, no two ways about it.

---

Of course, nowadays we'd call that child abuse.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I also received plenty of paddlings in high school, too.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:

This is a made-up word, which describes a made-up condition. If it meant anything at all (which it doesn't) it would mean a morbid fear of man.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:
"child-making man", or "inseminative male" to describe their sexuality?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
@Angloid - I stand corrected. If it meant anything - which it doesn't - it would mean "morbid fear of same".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
@Angloid - I stand corrected. If it meant anything - which it doesn't - it would mean "morbid fear of same".

---

Since when has there been a ruling that all terms must be defined literally according to their etymologies.
Also, when you call it a made-up word, what is the alternative, a word that grew on a tree? I think you mean that is perhaps too recent for you? However, if so make sure you never say "soul patch," "supersize," "apatosaur," "subdomain," or "supervillain" as they have all apparently been added to dictionaries in the last few years.*


*The first two were added to m-w in 2006 and the rest were added to the OED in 2012.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:

Also, when you call it a made-up word, what is the alternative, a word that grew on a tree? I think you mean that is perhaps too recent for you? However, if so make sure you never say "soul patch," "supersize," "apatosaur," "subdomain," or "supervillain" as they have all apparently been added to dictionaries in the last few years.*

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:
"child-making man", or "inseminative male" to describe their sexuality?

---

I would have thought those two phrases would be utterly demeaning in themselves, in that they describe a group of people in ways that are effectively based on a function rather than a state of being.

Heterosexual and homosexual are states of being - yes they have medical overtones, and that is, well mainly, because they are scientific and medical labels for a state of being. When you have a baby you don't expect your doctor to tell you that your child is a potential baby-making machine, donor of sperm, you expect them to say that you've had a boy or a girl - using a common terminology which denotes a characteristic of being.

To start labelling people based on what they could serve as a function of would take us back into the territory of women = baby making machines, which I thought we had moved on from as a culture, but of course, if the use of terms are circular in nature then...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
No it wouldn't. 'Homo' is from the Greek which means the same, not from the Latin for man. That's why it sets my teeth on edge when people say 'hoe-moe-sexual'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
It is a contrived word, apparently coined with the express intent of disparaging a section of the community...and that is how it is used. Its only purpose, is to suggest those who don't agree with the gay agenda have something seriously wrong with them. It is, in other words, deliberately offensive.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
It is a contrived word, apparently coined with the express intent of disparaging a section of the community...and that is how it is used. Its only purpose, is to suggest those who don't agree with the gay agenda have something seriously wrong with them. It is, in other words, deliberately offensive.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:

Also, when you call it a made-up word, what is the alternative, a word that grew on a tree? I think you mean that is perhaps too recent for you? However, if so make sure you never say "soul patch," "supersize," "apatosaur," "subdomain," or "supervillain" as they have all apparently been added to dictionaries in the last few years.*

---

It is a contrived word, apparently coined with the express intent of disparaging a section of the community...and that is how it is used. Its only purpose, is to suggest those who don't agree with the gay agenda have something seriously wrong with them. It is, in other words, deliberately offensive.

As for those other words you mention, they are indeed of recent vintage. I'm sure you realise that none of them have been invented for the specific purpose of questioning anyone else's mental state.

---

quote:

---

a persistent, irrational fear of a specific object , activity, or situation that leads to a compelling desire to avoid it

---

quote:

---

"We’re not trying to target anybody or scare anybody with hate, we’re just using our freedom of speech to drop fliers. Everyone thinks that we’re a hate group, we’re not a hate group, we don’t hate anyone, and we want to see good things come to our race."

- anonymous hood-wearing Klansman

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

Ok, so you don't like the word 'homophobia'. If someone says 'I detest gay people', how should that behaviour be described, if not as 'homophobic'?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cliffdweller:

So it's not really the word at all you're objecting to-- it's the assumptions behind it. Which is a whole 'nother matter. It seems to me that there are three possibilities:

1. Everyone who objects to homosexuality does so as a result of rational, reasonable thinking
2. No one who objects to homosexuality does so as a result of rational, reasonable thinking-- it is always the result of fear-or hate-based thinking
3. Some people object of homosexuality as a result of rational, reasonable thinking-- others as a result of fear-or hate-based thinking

If you assume #1 is true-- as apparently you do-- then "homophobe" is an example of hate speech designed simply to suppress a particular pov.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:

Nor would I agree that your three possibilities reflect the only choices available. An objection to homosexuality does not have to be either a result of rational, reasonable thinking, or a result of fear or hate-based thinking. I should imagine - in most cases - it is neither. I would suggest that it is commonly an emotional reaction, based on little more than a distaste for the concept (they couldn't see themselves doing it), perhaps some preconditioning or maybe its just uncomfortably umfamiliar territory. None of those would fit the criteria for a phobia, or even hate, in any meaningful sense.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Actually it comes pretty close to a mild phobia, which is simply an aversion to something w/o a rational basis. So, again, I believe "homophobia" is a useful term to describe a particular sort of thinking that arises in such debates.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

But homophobia has never been listed as part of a clinical list of phobias, not in Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) or International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD)- homophobia is used in the sense of 'irrational hostility/aversion' not as a clinical phobia at all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
@ Croesos. I'm surprised at your use of Fred Phelps as an example of homophobia. Phelps is a man who continues to demonstrate any number of major mental health issues. True, he hates gays, but he's very even-handed: he hates pretty-much everyone, with the sole exception of his 'congregation'. He's what is known in psychiatric terms as 'an all-round nut-job'. And while he might seem to focus disproportionately on gays, I'm sure he'd be the first to admit that he has equal contempt for the rest of the human race. His hatred of gays is merely symptomatic of a much greater malaise.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
My issue is with what I see as insulting terminology - hate speech, if you like - which is targetted at people who (for whatever reason) are uncomfortable with gays. I think the word 'homophobia' continues to be used as a stick with which to beat people who - on the whole - probably don't deserve it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
But homophobia has never been listed as part of a clinical list of phobias, not in Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) or International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD)- homophobia is used in the sense of 'irrational hostility/aversion' not as a clinical phobia at all.

---

One could say the same thing about "rockin' pneumonia" and "the boogie woogie flu". I'll start drafting the cease-and-desist letters to both Hank "Piano" Smith and Jonny Rivers right away!
 

---

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

Ok, so you don't like the word 'homophobia'. If someone says 'I detest gay people', how should that behaviour be described, if not as 'homophobic'?

---

Detesting something is not evidence of a phobia.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
Genuine phobias are actually quite serious

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

Ok, so you don't like the word 'homophobia'. If someone says 'I detest gay people', how should that behaviour be described, if not as 'homophobic'?

---

Detesting something is not evidence of a phobia.

---

So what should the name be? Give us a catch-all term.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Garasu:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
So what should the name be? Give us a catch-all term.

---

Homosexualmisia? On the pattern of misogyny?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:

This is a made-up word, which describes a made-up condition. If it meant anything at all (which it doesn't) it would mean a morbid fear of man.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Really? That's the metaphor you're going with to argue that it's the homophobes who are the real victims of hate?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

Ok, so you don't like the word 'homophobia'. If someone says 'I detest gay people', how should that behaviour be described, if not as 'homophobic'?

---

Detesting something is not evidence of a phobia.

---

So what should the name be? Give us a catch-all term.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by shamwari:
To be fair.

I am not sure that all "phobias" are irrational.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
You are absolutely right, Boogie. Such a phobia is unknown to the medical profession. So perhaps we should stop calling it one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
The difference is subtle, to be sure, but important. I am a person first. Particulars about me are secondary to that. A "person with disabilities" is a person. A "disabled person" is (or was in less enlightened times -- pardon the politically incorrect noun) a cripple.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by gorpo:
It is completely stupid to call someone a fundamentalist christian for believing in stuff that christians always believed.

---

Actually not a lot of people call the Orthodox "fundamentalist." But thanks for your concern.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Or perhaps we should grow the fuck up and realize that language isn't precise, and what the greater language community uses a word to mean is what it means.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
You are absolutely right, Boogie. Such a phobia is unknown to the medical profession. So perhaps we should stop calling it one.

---

Or perhaps we should grow the fuck up and realize that language isn't precise, and what the greater language community uses a word to mean is what it means.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

Really? That's the metaphor you're going with to argue that it's the homophobes who are the real victims of hate?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

To be consistent he has to argue that. This whole "look Ma the nasty PC police are being horrid to me" whinge is nothing but an attempt to make the rich and powerful seem like victims and the poor and weak seem like oppressors. That's what this whole thread is about. It isn't subtext, its text.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
Put it this way, I don't think the endless accusations of homophobia do anything to promote understanding between straights and gays.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
@ Croesos. I'm surprised at your use of Fred Phelps as an example of homophobia. Phelps is a man who continues to demonstrate any number of major mental health issues. True, he hates gays, but he's very even-handed: he hates pretty-much everyone, with the sole exception of his 'congregation'. He's what is known in psychiatric terms as 'an all-round nut-job'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Croesos:

You know what else doesn't do anything to "promote understanding"? Pretending racism and homophobia don't exist. Also not helpful: an attitude that considers pointing out that racism and homophobia exist to be much less acceptable than racism and homophobia. Claiming that Fred Phelps isn't a homophobe or accepting the Klan's claims that they're "not a hate group" isn't promoting understanding, it's just pretending a problem doesn't exist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Croesos:

You know what else doesn't do anything to "promote understanding"? Pretending racism and homophobia don't exist. Also not helpful: an attitude that considers pointing out that racism and homophobia exist to be much less acceptable than racism and homophobia. Claiming that Fred Phelps isn't a homophobe or accepting the Klan's claims that they're "not a hate group" isn't promoting understanding, it's just pretending a problem doesn't exist.

---

I think there could be a little confusion here, Croesos. I have no idea why you mention racism, or why anyone would pretend it doesn't exist. Or who you think considers pointing out racism is much less acceptable than racism itself....unless you are accusing me of that, in which case I would be interested in seeing the evidence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
Likewise, I'm not sure why you are talking about people who accept the claims of the KKK - is that supposed to be me?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
I realised that there could be some who might choose to be outraged at the thought of letting go of the homophobia thing, but I also suspected there could be one or two who might just wonder if that approach had ever actually achieved anything. Perhaps a little optimistic, on reflection, but there you are.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

But homophobia has never been listed as part of a clinical list of phobias, not in Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) or International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD)- homophobia is used in the sense of 'irrational hostility/aversion' not as a clinical phobia at all.

---

You are absolutely right, Boogie. Such a phobia is unknown to the medical profession. So perhaps we should stop calling it one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
[QUOTE]]No. I would argue that some people are victimized by the attribution of a derogatory title which implies mental dysfunctionality, when it isn't the case. Further, that the application of this title is in no way confined to those who exhibit real fear or loathing, but - increasingly - to people whose only 'crime' is a personal dislike or ignorance of some aspect of 'gayness'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
[QUOTE]] I'm merely trying to flag-up what I believe is unhelpful and inaccurate terminology. Put it this way, I don't think the endless accusations of homophobia do anything to promote understanding between straights and gays.

I think some people do feel victimized, when even something as trivial as their ignorance of current gay culture can produce that accusation. I also believe that people will be increasingly reluctant to engage with gays, for fear of saying something which will earn them that label.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
[QUOTE]]
"An attempt to make the rich and powerful seem like victims and the poor and weak seem like oppressors." I don't know where the rich and powerful come into it. Do you?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Croesos:

Just to be clear, when you say "the homophobia thing" you mean "referring to anti-gay slurs and violence as homophobia", not "anti-gay slurs and violence", right? I'm afraid I have to disagree with ordering priorities in that way. The biggest problem here isn't what we call anti-gay slurs and violence, it's the fact that anti-gay slurs and violence exist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
They insist that they're not "racists", just "racial realists" who don't hate anyone but have a "realistic" view of the inferiority of the lesser races*.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:
But would that bother some or all heterosexual men, or would they wear the functional label as a sort of badge of pride to differentiate themselves from others who don't carry out the function, as it were?

I'm sure some men would baulk at such a description and some others would love it, not caring about the finer points of being defined by function, as long as they make it perfectly clear what they are not.

[QUOTE][QB]We already have functional terms to differentiate the sexes - man/woman, male/female - and differentiation on skin colour and faith - white, black, muslim, Christian etc. So what will stop some men looking to that model to differentiate themselves from others, and if "definition by function" isn't a suitable counter-argument, what is?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
Expecting gay people to abstain from sex simply because of their orientation is a negative, prejudiced attitude towards them = homophobia.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:

We shouldn't be policing what people think, purely how they act towards others.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
It isn't just what we do which hurts others. It's also what we say - especially if we preach it from pulpits with an air of 'authority'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:


Occassionally people who hold it all together slip up and say something - I will forgive them that... the way we should act towards people should be based on the entirety of their actions put together, not just the occassional slip which is, dragging this back to a theme up thread, where some people become labelled as homophobes over and over again, because of one slip up that runs in contradiction to the entirety of all their past actions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
Oh yes - very true! This problem is also exacerbated online as our words are there for all to see for evermore!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If "racist" is a word with many negative connotations which is often used to insult and marginalise the people and groups to whom it is applied...

And if groups should have the right to define what they are called to stop other people insulting and marginalising them...

Then why shouldn't "racists" have the same right to be called "racial realists" that "homosexuals" have to be called "gays"? In principle, what's the difference?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
This link probably represents a step back in this conversation, we have moved on from the freedom to insult and be insulted - but I came across this whilst news reading today and thought it might be an interesting aside to the comments made.

I will warn that those who are easily offended, you may find some of the words used offensive, it is the nature of the piece which is aiming to make a point that is somewhat pertinant to the thread.

You read the article at your own risk and peril, and don't lambast me if you are offended (though I personally don't see how anyone could be).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Julie Burchill in the Observer
Shims, shemales, whatever you’re calling yourselves these days – don’t threaten or bully us lowly natural-born women, I warn you. We may not have as many lovely big swinging Phds as you, but we’ve experienced a lifetime of PMT and sexual harassment and many of us are now staring HRT and the menopause straight in the face – and still not flinching. Trust me, you ain’t seen nothing yet. You really won’t like us when we’re angry.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Same-sex attraction is not something ontological, it is not fate or destiny or predetermined identity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amorya:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Same-sex attraction is not something ontological, it is not fate or destiny or predetermined identity.

---

Without getting into Dead Horse territory, all I'll say is there's a hell of a lot of people who would categorically disagree with that statement.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
"That isn't politically correct" is a better way to begin the explanation than "that's racist" or "that's offensive".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
On the subject of “homophobia”, it is worth remembering that it is not the first case of a pseudo-medical term being manufactured for manipulative ideological purposes...

Of course there are people with a paranoid dislike of homosexuals, but it is perfectly possible to seriously believe that homosexual behaviour is wrong, without either fearing or hating homosexuals.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Same-sex attraction is not something ontological, it is not fate or destiny or predetermined identity.

In the same way, most healthy, married heterosexual men .....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
And anyway, no-one ever *does* use the expression that way.

---

quote:

---

And what Amorya just said about Julie Burchill & Suzanne Moore.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Now you have just demonstrated that "homophobia" is not a term "manufactured for manipulative ideological purposes", but rather a valid colloquial expression useful for describing what you just acknowledged-- people with a "paranoid" (more likely simply irrational) dislike of homosexuals. The fact that the term may be misused does not in and of itself invalidate the term-- it simply invalidates some usage.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
a valid colloquial expression useful for describing what you just acknowledged-- people with a "paranoid" (more likely simply irrational) dislike of homosexuals.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Same-sex attraction is not something ontological, it is not fate or destiny or predetermined identity.

In the same way, most healthy, married heterosexual men .....

---

How do you know? How can you be so dogmatic? There is a huge debate going on about whether same-sex attraction is ontological and predetermined.

As for 'healthy' - does that imply that non-heterosexual men are unhealthy?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
What I was trying to say was that given such a sexual orientation, a person is under no irresistible compulsion to act it out because that is what they "are".

"Homosexual is as homosexual does" is a principle which also applies to heterosexuals in areas such as fornication and adultery, to which they might feel a strong attraction.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by QLib:
I note you don't say that heterosexuals aren't under an irresistible compulsion to have sex.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:
That's an extremely predictable article Sergius...

---