Sophia's Lexionary

[jasd]

Umm, you might wanna consider taking it up a notch.

[Guest]

>>PC is massively contributing to our nati’l decline and serves, again, sinistral interests – to our immeasurable detriment. <<

Yep

[SivartM]

Who's arguing for PC?

Why is it so hard to just be kind to others while taking into account their own feelings?

I assumed that my initial statement wouldn't be disputed. How can people not see the rudeness all around them? Does anyone else have any idea how annoying it is to see the people emerge from their lairs (the "PC lair" and the "Mac non-PC lair") and hiss at each other when they could just... be nice?

But I suppose it's never that simple. Before we can be nice we must debate over the meaning of "nice", debate over practical applications of "nice", get rid of all PC, and so on and so forth. It's just like in that other thread: we can't just "love" terrorists, we must define "love", debate about whether or not we should pardon them for everything, slap everyone who disagrees with us, etc.

Why can't we just GET ALONG????

Oh, wait. Oops... I had set a rule earlier about posts not being longer than two sentences (who can find offense in such a short post?)...

Oh wells.

I don't see the point in going round and round arguing about what it means to be kind. That's kind of... ironic? Oxymoronic? Really. Who gives a care about PC vs. non-PC? All I'm getting from this discussion is frustration over the constant, "Gasp! How dare you accuse a single one of my non-PC comrades of being rude?"

If we can't just get over labels and definitions and be kind, I'm done here.

And really, you needn't clap and shout good riddance at me. That would be... uh... rude.

[Guest]

Who are you calling rude????!!

[SivartM]

...

The people who are clapping and saying good riddance when I say that if we can't come to some sort of an agreement I'm leaving.

Am I really this bad at communicating simple ideas?

*sigh*

[Guest]

What idea?

[Outta Here]

Sivart, you're perfectly clear. You are not alone in your thoughts. There are many who read and feel the same way you do. They are mostly people who do not engage in the verbal warfare of trying to correct others' rude behavior, however. Rather, they are the ones, like the ones from Omelas, who simply "walk away".

[SivartM]

Thank you, dgrimm.

At least someone understands what I'm talking about... :D

[SivartM]

Sivart, you're perfectly clear. You are not alone in your thoughts. There are many who read and feel the same way you do. They are mostly people who do not engage in the verbal warfare of trying to correct others' rude behavior, however. Rather, they are the ones, like the [ones from Omelas, who simply "walk away".

Thanks, Aubrey. I usually try to walk away but I get very frustrated sometimes... like when people don't want to admit that (gasp) not everyone on their "side" is perfect!

Thanks for posting that story. I'll read it later. :)

[jasd]

I think we might wanna oughta reconsider attempting to equate the coercive and manipulative nature of PC with love and kindness of any kind. Bit of a disjunction, no? :-(

[Guest]

Yep...

[Bravus]

I've stayed out of it fairly much so far, but thought I'd drop in to chat.

Surely language use is a continuum? I doubt anyone here is comfortable with calling someone the 4 letter word that begins with 'c'. So clearly there are some words that we all agree are not appropriate to apply to people.

Now, some might be OK with using terms like '[theN-word]', 'kike', 'spic' and so on (and more comfortable with some than others, perhaps). Most would feel that doing so is not appropriate, and is likely to lead to trouble. Most would object if a derogatory word that applied to the group of which they are a member was applied to them. (But power relations do make a difference: '[theN-word]' was used in systematic abuse, 'honky' not so much.)

Then, at the other end, there are clearly ways in which a concern for inclusive language has gone too far and is ridiculous. Moving from 'disabled' to 'differently able' for example, is a step too far in my opinion. It will just mean that the new term will become unacceptable in future and have to be replaced, ad infinitum. There is some scope for reclaiming simple, declarative, descriptive language.

I notice when I'm riding that I have a tendency to get annoyed at the 'wimpy' riders who go slower and take less risks than me, and also at the 'crazy' riders who go faster and take more risks. That is, I'm happy at my position on the continuum, and it's awfully easy to judge those at other positions, regardless of whether they have been riding longer or have just started, etc.

Same with language, IMO. It's a continuum, and there are some words that almost everyone finds unacceptable, and some that almost everyone finds acceptable. But along the continuum, it's awfully easy to get riled up at those in a different position.

For myself, I would prefer to build and protect relationships with others, more than I would prefer to protect my own freedom to use certain language. That means I'll probably err toward the 'more PC' end of the continuum, in the opinion of others with different priorities.

[Bravus]

(and it's interesting that the forum software is set to auto-censor the 'n-word', which I used)

[phkrause]

I've stayed out of it fairly much so far, but thought I'd drop in to chat.

Surely language use is a continuum? I doubt anyone here is comfortable with calling someone the 4 letter word that begins with 'c'. So clearly there are some words that we all agree are not appropriate to apply to people.

Now, some might be OK with using terms like '[theN-word]', 'kike', 'spic' and so on (and more comfortable with some than others, perhaps). Most would feel that doing so is not appropriate, and is likely to lead to trouble. Most would object if a derogatory word that applied to the group of which they are a member was applied to them. (But power relations do make a difference: '[theN-word]' was used in systematic abuse, 'honky' not so much.)

Then, at the other end, there are clearly ways in which a concern for inclusive language has gone too far and is ridiculous. Moving from 'disabled' to 'differently able' for example, is a step too far in my opinion. It will just mean that the new term will become unacceptable in future and have to be replaced, ad infinitum. There is some scope for reclaiming simple, declarative, descriptive language.

I notice when I'm riding that I have a tendency to get annoyed at the 'wimpy' riders who go slower and take less risks than me, and also at the 'crazy' riders who go faster and take more risks. That is, I'm happy at my position on the continuum, and it's awfully easy to judge those at other positions, regardless of whether they have been riding longer or have just started, etc.

Same with language, IMO. It's a continuum, and there are some words that almost everyone finds unacceptable, and some that almost everyone finds acceptable. But along the continuum, it's awfully easy to get riled up at those in a different position.

For myself, I would prefer to build and protect relationships with others, more than I would prefer to protect my own freedom to use certain language. That means I'll probably err toward the 'more PC' end of the continuum, in the opinion of others with different priorities.

I like your post very much Bravus. Have no problems with any of it.

pk

[jasd]

>>I've stayed out of it fairly much so far, but thought I'd drop in to chat.<<

Unless there is something bad wrong with my 20/280 astigmatic perspectives – you’ve stayed out of it entirely; and, chat is good.

>>Surely language use is a continuum?<<

Ya betchums.

>>I doubt anyone here is comfortable with calling someone the 4 letter word that begins with 'c'. So clearly there are some words that we all agree are not appropriate to apply to people.<<

I suspect that the c-word is part of the lingua franca of the not-so-leftist wing of PC subscribers; and judging from some of the posts submitted to this forum by seeming misogynists – I think that this or the other one would be entirely comfortable with the c-word.

>>Now, some might be OK with using terms like '[theN-word]', 'kike', 'spic' and so on (and more comfortable with some than others, perhaps). Most would feel that doing so is not appropriate, and is likely to lead to trouble. Most would object if a derogatory word that applied to the group of which they are a member was applied to them. (But power relations do make a difference: '[theN-word]' was used in systematic abuse, 'honky' not so much.)<<

I think that such as simple concern has long since addressed the narrow use of the above derogatories – without the help of PC, as currently utilized.

>>Then, at the other end, there are clearly ways in which a concern for inclusive language [...]

Same with language, IMO. It's a continuum, and there are some words that almost everyone finds unacceptable, and some that almost everyone finds acceptable. But along the continuum, it's awfully easy to get riled up at those in a different position.<<

Gd may have attempted to remedy that ‘way back at the building of the Tower. That said,

this thread, so far, was not necessarily dealing with the positives and negatives of colloquial or vernacular isms (another and equally important aspect of the matter) – but with the application of malevolent programs, which, on the face of it, are resulting in the evisceration of American culture and heritage (continuum be dinked) – with, as its denouement, the utter destruction and the assimilation of our ideals into a mongrelized whole – of peers.

I am, not at all, good with that!

“Howard Dean, attending a conference in Paris, France, has declared the debate between Capitalism and Socialism is over. What is interesting is that in this video he calls Socialism "Communitarianism".”

Surprise! Dean is the Committee Chairman of the DNC. Scarily, he speaks awfully close to the truth in that, for the first time in our nat’l history, more than 90% of those comprising the Executive Branch of our current Administration have

never worked in the private sector, having found their 'home' in the Public Sector. (why does that not surprise?)

“Communitarianism”. Wha’sdat? malignant and enlarged community organizing?

>>For myself, I would prefer to build and protect relationships with others, more than I would prefer to protect my own freedom to use certain language. That means I'll probably err toward the 'more PC' end of the continuum, in the opinion of others with different priorities.<<

The direction this thread has taken so far – has not focused upon the verbal – but rather, the activism which is usually presaged by the imposed and sometimes ‘coy etiquette’ of language. Orwellian?

[jasd]

233: [...]

[jasd]

Hot air: man made global warming...

[jasd]

Redone'ncy: finding the samce 'hot air/man made global warming' idea proffered by Redwood in the thread "Germany reaffirms Sunday Law"