The Los Angeles NAACP has, yes.
From the article:
*“The intent here is to say that this graduate is not afraid of anything,” explained Hallmark spokesman Steve Doyal.
But that’s not what some people heard.
“You hear the ‘r’ in there. ‘Whores,’ not, ‘holes.’ The ‘r’ is in there,” said Minnie Hatley of the Los Angeles NAACP.
*
Compared to this Dr Laura should be hanged 
I don’t know what you mean by civil rights “groups”. Civil rights “organizations” sure, but your OP simply said, “issues of race and gender”. A religion obviously has more of an agenda than a whole race or gender.
And Jas09 already made clear why it’s relevant to bring up religion. Political correctness is not strictly a phenomena of the left, you know.
I didn’t mention religion because this thread is not about religion. Obviously if I wanted to provide an exhaustive list of persons and groups that obsess over minor things, I could also have listed the atheists who have a cow over creche scenes in public parks. But that wasn’t the goal of the thread.
What is the goal of the thread then? Why have you chosen to limit it to race and gender? Why are race and gender grouped together? What makes those two specific categories the ones you want to talk about in this context? What makes them distinct in this context from religion or the atheists you mention?
Huh. I must be reading this differently from you, then. I’d definitely put atheist and religious actions and protests regarding “speech” in this category. Except, maybe, the strictly legal actions, which are forced attempts at modifying/restricting speech. I’d define “political correctness” as a strategy to modify public acceptance, not changing or enforcing legal acceptance. I can probably find the relevant Dawkins quote regarding what he calls “raising awareness” that fairly clearly spells it out (and IIRC, links it to feminist attempts at changing language).
I’m confused – do you mean to say that this is a good thing in general, or just wrt those special interest groups?
Besides, the mere fact that a strategy works doesn’t make it intelligent. In order to eliminate opposition to your viewpoint, you could choose to bash in the heads of all dissenters; that’d work, provided you have the means to do so. However, there may be a strategy that accomplishes the same goal without making you look like a needlessly violent despot. There are working strategies that are, nevertheless, stupid.
[quote=“Shodan, post:14, topic:551206”]
True dat. Every time some one goes ballistic over using the term “niggardly” it [list=A][li]makes them look stupid, which is exactly the effect you don’t want, and [*]makes it that much easier to overlook use of the term “nigger”.[/list][/li][/QUOTE]
Interestingly, the people who constantly bring up the issue of “niggardly” are the people who are running around wailing about political correctness.
There was one, single incident in Washington, D.C. where a bunch of idiots, (of similar low intelligence to the total fools in L.A. ranting about “black holes”), cost a gentleman his job for using the word niggardly, yet many times that a discussion of “nigger” comes up, we get treated to tales about how (implied “all”) the people who complain about “nigger” can’t tell the difference between “nigger” and “niggard” as though that was a common event. The only common event is that the the event is raised by people who claim to oppose Political Correctness, not those accused of promoting Political Correctness.
Cite?
Regards,
Shodan
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12836441&postcount=14
It is a lot less common to hear anyone complaining about the use of “niggardly” than it is to hear people complaining that someone else, (actually one silly group in Washington D.C. and a second idiot on a California school board), complained about the use of niggardly.
I think this debate is suffering from the general vagueness of what we mean by “political correctness”. Steward Lee made the point in one of his stand up shows that many of the ‘examples’ of “PC gone mad” were actually examples of “Health and Safety standards gone mad” [note; this confusion is very common in the UK, but not as much AFAIK in the US]
I browsed the Wiki page (yes I know, but you have to start somewhere), and the term seems to be used in so many ways it’s very hard to get a clear handle on it.
Historically [60s], it seems to have been a term that was much closer to its literal meaning: “politically correct” == “conforming to political [leftist] dogma”, and even back then it was mostly used ironically.
But more recently [after the early 90s or so], you can define it as a generic linguistic/sociological strategy; using “framing effects”. In historical context, a push for “inclusive language”, but the same strategy can also be used for historically completely unrelated or even opposite goals.
So what exactly are we talking about here? Are we talking about a] “the leftist/feminist dogma”, b] “the language strategy to reduce discrimination”, c] “any language strategy that has [some] political/social goal”. Something else? What?
I think the discussion would be more clear if in any following responses, we make it clear what exactly we mean by the term. I’ve been using it mostly in the sense of c], but I think at least ITR has a different meaning in mind.
** Which may be because in the US, people are quicker to blame lawyers and insurance companies for this kind of thing, while in the UK, idiots and government officials tend to get the blame. (Relatively regardless of what the circumstances are).
Unbelievable. The front of the card talks about the solar system. And after listening, it clearly says black “holes”, not “whores”.
What a bunch of lying, whiney racist jackasses.
Do you have a real cite, or are you simply making a personal attack?
OK. Instead of the two incidents I cited, there were also two more over the course of eleven years.
I can easily find more than four posts, here, in which outrage at niggardly is scorned:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=8087418#post8087418
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=9677716#post9677716http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=9947023#post9947023
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=10840323#post10840323
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=11297710#post11297710
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=11970292#post11970292
How is this a personal attack? You tried to make a point about the offenderati with a reference to “niggardly.” I pointed out that it is more frequent to encounter people expressing offense at the offenderati. You demanded a cite and I provided your post.
We have (thanks to furt) documented four occasions when someone stupidly got offended by “niggardly.” I have now provided more than four occasions where someone was complaining about or mocking someone else for being offended by “niggardly.” (And if I looked up Limbaugh or O’Reilly, I could probably find a few dozen more.)
I maintain that people have expressed more offense that someone could take offense at niggardly than have actually been offended by niggardly. I see no reason to change my views or to ignore your participation in all the outrage, (however mild).
On preview - nm.
DNFTTomndebb.
Regards,
Shodan
IOW, “even though I was wrong on the facts, I still have the larger truth on my side.” Thank you, Diogenes.
And FWIW, I count six, plus a remark from the editors of a magazine indicating they get letters about it at least occasionally. It’s common sense that a quite small fraction of incidents are going to make it to the press, let alone wikipedia. More to the point: if you were speaking to a group of African-Americans, you know damn well you’d never use the word.
The vast majority of the time, PC squelching occurs in ways that never come close to making the paper: e.g. the teaching colleague of mine whose department head, in response to a student complaint, “suggested” he not use the phrase “illegal immigrant” in referring to sojurners without benefit of visa, because the term was “insensitive.” The next semester, he took the topic off the reading list.
N1.
Seriously now, was my entire point. Having a holy cow over someone saying “niggardly” is the exact opposite of helpful, as all it does it make these civil rights groups look like a bunch of whining cowards. The OP’s contention is that their approach was “Don’t even fuck with me; I will ruin your life if you even use a word that sounds like nigger,” to which my reply was, “That’s not going to stop anyone from fucking with you. In fact, all it’s going to do is make people not take you seriously because you sound fucking stupid.” Yes, there is far more griping about idiotic gripes, than there is idiotic gripes. You’d think, though, that would make them want to tone it down and only submit legitimate complaints.