Simple Question: Is anyone else fed up with having to be PC ?

[reohn2]

Hi all, It was Reohn who capitalized the word as "GAY" (Good As You), but left it as Gay, meaning Happy.
So no slight itended to anyone, but it does show that it is a fine line between okay & iffy or even offensive......

No it doesn't,context is everything when used in the spoken word,the capitalised use was merely to clarify the acronym.
Also it's not everyone that knows what the acronym GAY stands for,I have a friend who is black and GAY,started his working life as an actor,then became a bank manager,he's now a councellor(it's not been an easy life for him,especially being an adopted child to white parents in a predominantly white area),he has a couple of degrees one in English literature and one in music,surprisingly enough he was unaware of what the acronym GAY stood for when I mentioned it to him.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

This thread is becoming abrasive as I'm afraid much of the forum has recently,perhaps it's time I took a break,as I find it quite tiring.

[Oldjohnw]

* One must say Chalk Board no matter what. One is now also obliged to have children sing "Baa Baa Wooly Sheep" or you are for the high jump.
With a wife who taught for 42 years and a daughter who has done the same job for 17 years we speak as it is.

Dreadful if true. But not true.

[Bez]

I remember seeing a Louix Theroux TV program which featured people with the most outrageous anti gay signs and chants in the street in the US. Its allowed. But just like Alf Garnet it showed them up just as Trump has revealed to everyone what a bigot he actually is.

Mm. And there's the rub: to suppress something can make it more appealing; to publicise it can draw attention to it; but to unquestioningly accept it is to endorse it. Bigotry and hate speech are not easy to handle. But personally I don't see Trump as a product of true free speech; more one of a deliberate recalibration of social discussion.

[Bez]

One must say Chalk Board no matter what. One is now also obliged to have children sing "Baa Baa Wooly Sheep" or you are for the high jump. With a wife who taught for 42 years and a daughter who has done the same job for 17 years we speak as it is.

My wife teaches and I'm pretty sure she's never used "Woolly Sheep". And I'm certain our kids have both been taught "Black Sheep". They both come home with novel variations of the toe-owner in Eeny Meeny Miny Moe ("fish" is a curious one), so that's one staple of our youth which has indeed been edited—but quite rightly so, I would suggest.

And I've definitely never once heard whiteboards referred to as "pen boards", so I think the education sector has probably managed to figure out the difference between an actual colour and a racial label.

[Cunobelin]

What Neeson did wasn't just in his mind - he said he went out for about a week with a cosh in the hope of finding a black person to attack. He didn't find one. I wonder what his action would have been if someone white had committed the alleged rape.

This is one of the misreported aspects of the case

I did it for maybe a week, hoping some [in air quotes] 'black <i>[rude word removed]</i>' would come out of a pub and have a go at me about something, you know? So that I could… kill him.”

He was open that it would be in retaliation, he was not looking for someone to attack, he was looking for someone who would attack him

That doesn't justify it. Going out armed hoping someone would "have a go" and then killing him wouldn't even be justifiable as self defence. In any case have a go usually means something verbal not physical.

Nobody said it was acceptable, but it is an entirely different situation

[pete75]

This is one of the misreported aspects of the case




He was open that it would be in retaliation, he was not looking for someone to attack, he was looking for someone who would attack him

That doesn't justify it. Going out armed hoping someone would "have a go" and then killing him wouldn't even be justifiable as self defence. In any case have a go usually means something verbal not physical.

Nobody said it was acceptable, but it is an entirely different situation

Is it? It's still a desire to do someone harm based purely on their race. If someone white "had a go at him" he wasn't intending to beat them to death.

[Cunobelin]

That doesn't justify it. Going out armed hoping someone would "have a go" and then killing him wouldn't even be justifiable as self defence. In any case have a go usually means something verbal not physical.

Nobody said it was acceptable, but it is an entirely different situation

Is it? It's still a desire to do someone harm based purely on their race. If someone white "had a go at him" he wasn't intending to beat them to death.

Simples...

1. The person shows no aggressive or violent tendencies and is chosen as a random victim
2. The person chooses to interact in an aggressive and violent way

If that is too complex, I am afraid I cannot make it simpler

[AMMoffat]

That doesn't justify it. Going out armed hoping someone would "have a go" and then killing him wouldn't even be justifiable as self defence. In any case have a go usually means something verbal not physical.

Nobody said it was acceptable, but it is an entirely different situation

Is it? It's still a desire to do someone harm based purely on their race. If someone white "had a go at him" he wasn't intending to beat them to death.

He might have if his friend had been raped by a white man.

Of course it was entirely wrong and deplorable to go out looking for a random person of the appropriate colour to attack/kill but we don't know whether he would have done the same had the perpetrator been white. Would that have been racism too as opposed to just being wrong?

[slowster]

Nobody said it was acceptable, but it is an entirely different situation

Is it? It's still a desire to do someone harm based purely on their race. If someone white "had a go at him" he wasn't intending to beat them to death.

Simples...

1. The person shows no aggressive or violent tendencies and is chosen as a random victim
2. The person chooses to interact in an aggressive and violent way

If that is too complex, I am afraid I cannot make it simpler

By his own admission Neeson was actively going about armed with a weapon with the desire/intention of killing a black man. The fact that he had decided that he would only do so to a black man who was abusive or confronted him, was merely a pretext in his mind to justify what would still be murder. To argue that such a pretext makes it an entirely different situation compared with wanting to kill any random black man is splitting hairs and missing the point of the issue.

[pete75]

Nobody said it was acceptable, but it is an entirely different situation

Is it? It's still a desire to do someone harm based purely on their race. If someone white "had a go at him" he wasn't intending to beat them to death.

Simples...

1. The person shows no aggressive or violent tendencies and is chosen as a random victim
2. The person chooses to interact in an aggressive and violent way

If that is too complex, I am afraid I cannot make it simpler

It's not complex just plain wrong.

[windysmithy]

I for one am really pleased that it is less acceptable nowadays for my youngest daughter to be called a pikey on the school bus than in my elder daughter's day.

Get over it; using offensive language can really hurt some people. It is bullying. If you hadn't realised before that it's offensive, then be thankful that someone has pointed it out to you and that the world can be a better place.

[Cunobelin]

Is it? It's still a desire to do someone harm based purely on their race. If someone white "had a go at him" he wasn't intending to beat them to death.

Simples...

1. The person shows no aggressive or violent tendencies and is chosen as a random victim
2. The person chooses to interact in an aggressive and violent way

If that is too complex, I am afraid I cannot make it simpler

It's not complex just plain wrong.

Different argument, no-one is questioning that it is wrong, it is the refusal to recognise the way t was manipulated to make it look even worse

[Cugel]

Hi there, I think that the problem with the "PC" mob is that they appear to want us to live in a vacuum!
They hijack our language, so I can no longer think of having a "Gay Box" to put on the wall! I am not supposed to eat "Faggots" these days! Nice in gravy.
I have to avoid saying "Blackboard", even though it is clearly a board and black in colour! "Blackmail" is an offence not for the actual extortion attempt, but for the Non_PC language!
If I go any further I will get abused in the same way Liam Neeson has. I heard it said that "Thinking" about committing a crime is actually n act of doing a crime? Well that would mean that all Crime Fiction & Who done its are crimes in their own right?
I think a reality check is needed. TTFN MM

I regularly employ those terms you mention (and several similar) in their traditional semantic. No one even notices.

I often feel the anti-PC brigade make up these supposed terrible fetters upon their freedom to express. Often one digs up the fact that they are less concerned about PC fetters than avid for expressing some nasty attitude without being gainsayed. For many "freedom of speech" means "freedom to abuse, stereotype, slander or otherwise emit some toxic verbal spit without getting told off for being a nasty little erk.

Cugel

[Oldjohnw]

I often feel the anti-PC brigade make up these supposed terrible fetters upon their freedom to express. Often one digs up the fact that they are less concerned about PC fetters than avid for expressing some nasty attitude without being gainsayed. For many "freedom of speech" means "freedom to abuse, stereotype, slander or otherwise emit some toxic verbal spit without getting told off for being a nasty little erk.

Cugel

Absolutely. A bit like every bit of regulation was dismissed as "health and safety gone mad". Perhaps they preferred it when children died in coal mines or lost fingers in factories. Perhaps they preferred it in the 1950s when landlords could have notices stating "No blacks, Irish, unmarried mothers, gypsies".

[Oldjohnw]

Currently on the BBC website:

https://www.bbc.com/food/recipes/the_great_british_faggot_22530

So much for the word being banned, unless intended as abuse.

The people who complain about bring PC tend, in my experience, to be the same ones who complain about health and safety and also human rights. And they will make up or repeat any old story to justify their stance.