You link to a definition of “tear” as a noun when using it as a verb in the very sentence from which it is linked? “Tear” used as a verb means something like “rip”. Are you farting at us?
I’ll leave it to someone else to address the use of “a speech sound which is not a vowel” used as an adjective.
Also, I take back my advice about codpieces. You would only give them a bad name.
Racist!
Yes, kudos Askthepizzaguy, kufuckindos! (Though it really needed more [DEL][COLOR=“Black”]cowbell[/DEL][/COLOR] spittle.)
Those would be men, straights, and the religious for short.
Or,
We liberals, who stand for the equality of all people, for even shorter.
CMC fnord!
Hey, CMC; don’t you find it amusing that String thinks I’m liberal? I wonder how he finds my [del]knowing[/del] thinking he’s a bigot.
Stringbean is all knowing, he knows more about Islam than Muslims, more about liberalism than liberals, and more about nothing than Lawrence Krauss. In fact Stringbean is the world’s leading expert on nothing, he knows everything about nothing!
CMC fnord!
Is nothing sacred? Might as well be, everything else is.
PC’s the other way around though. PC is when the chief can’t just call you a kike nigger faggot to make his enforcers laugh. Because in this day and age, even kike nigger faggots have a vote. And lawyers. And recording equipment.
Or, to put it another way :
[QUOTE=Alexander Blechman]
Once upon a time, there was a racist tree. Seriously, you are going to hate this tree. High on a hill overlooking the town, the racist tree grew where the grass was half clover. Children would visit during the sunlit hours and ask for apples, and the racist tree would shake its branches and drop the delicious red fruit that gleamed without being polished. The children ate many of the racist tree’s apples and played games beneath the shade of its racist branches. One day the children brought Sam, a boy who had just moved to town, to play around the racist tree.
“Let Sam have an apple,” asked a little girl.
“I don’t think so. He’s black,” said the tree. This shocked the children and they spoke to the tree angrily, but it would not shake its branches to give Sam an apple, and it called him a nigger.
“I can’t believe the racist tree is such a racist,” said one child. The children momentarily reflected that perhaps this kind of behavior was how the racist tree got its name.
It was decided that if the tree was going to deny apples to Sam then nobody would take its apples. The children stopped visiting the racist tree.
The racist tree grew quite lonely. After many solitary weeks it saw a child flying a kite across the clover field.
“Can I offer you some apples?” asked the tree eagerly.
“Fuck off, you goddamn Nazi,” said the child.
The racist tree was upset, because while it was very racist, it did not personally subscribe to Hitler’s fascist ideology. The racist tree decided that it would have to give apples to black children, not because it was tolerant, but because otherwise it would face ostracism from white children.
And so, social progress was made.
[/QUOTE]
Wow, the first draft of The Giving Tree was really dark!
CMC fnord!
You know, a while back MovieBobmade a statement along the lines of “Assholes have decided to use ‘political correctness’ as a shield when you call them on their bullshit. Say something bigoted and hurtful, then when they call you on it, accuse them of ‘enforcing PC’, and suddenly they’re the bad guy!”
Kinda wishing I could strap OP to a chair, Clockwork Orange-style, and force him to watch that video on repeat until his tiny brain drooled out his ears. Because while it isn’t always that straightforward, in this case, it absolutely is. Hey asshole, nobody’s gonna stop you from saying or doing controversial things. It’s just that we, as a society, have gotten to the point where racism, sexism, transphobia, homophobia, and various other forms of bigotry are no longer deemed acceptable by most people.
And you know what?
That’s a good thing. It means that marginalized groups get a shot at being as well-off as the rest of us. And hey, if you really want to see “PC” go away, check out FOX News! They “Break PC” (read: say something bigoted and hurtful about a marginalized group and/or make light of tragic events because those suffering belong to said marginalized group, i.e. be complete and total douchebags) on a regular basis! It’s just that most of us think that’s a bad thing, and we have no trouble saying so.
Let’s make it clear here. When people advocate heretonormism, they’re telling a large group of people that they’re neither normal nor acceptable. When people advocate patriarchal societal roles, they’re propping up a system that effectively says “women aren’t as good as men”. When people push for binary gender roles, they ignore the wealth of advances in science regarding gender and sexuality, as well as the suffering of countless transgendered people.
And you know what? Nothing’s stopping you from going out on the streetcorner, setting up your soapbox, and saying whatever bigoted crap you want. Fuck, man, in what is perhaps truly disgusting irony, that was basically Charlie Hebdo’s whole schtick! But don’t be surprised when people call you a douchebag, and don’t be surprised when, if you’re in a position of authority, people want you relieved of your authority - because they recognize that you may very well use your authority to hurt people. And especially don’t be surprised when those with authority recognize your bigotry and stupidity for what it is, and say “I’d rather not have anything to do with you. I’d rather not have you representing my company. I’d rather not have you on my staff. I’d rather not be your friend.” Because that’s what being a retrograde bully with a persecution complex and a whole lot of bigotry will get you: people rightfully deciding “wow, what an asshole” and not wanting anything to do with you!
The nice thing about this forum is that people are generally smart enough to recognize this pathetic, reflexive PC posturing for what it is - a bully complaining about society moving forward and becoming a more open, accepting place.
ideo·logue noun \ˈī-dē-ə-ˌlȯg, -ˌläg\
: someone who very strongly supports and is guided by the ideology of a particular group
Was there something wrong with what I said, or what?
Iamnotivan, would you like to prove your claims in your opening post? Please do so. Start by defining “political correctness.” Just using the term isn’t enough. You have to give all of the subcategories of it and show how they are connected. Define each of those subcategories carefully and give some examples of each of them. You will need to give a citation for each of the examples. That means that you have to say exactly where and when each example happened and how it’s an example of that subcategory. You need to provide a link for each such example. Then you need to explain how all these subcategories of political correctness are related and have a common cause. You need to provide a link for each such explanation and for the common cause. Only if you can do that can you persuade us.
Nah, man, he’s just a useless driveby troll. Don’t waste your energy.
This is why it is never a good idea to put methyl alcohol in your coffee.
Ngow you fugking tel me!
Great. Now luci’s gone blind. Thanks, Obama.
Yes.
I was referencing that there was a parallel between your verbose righteousness and the OP’s moronic butt-hurt about political correctness.
Freedom of the Press; of speech itself; should be the first concern. That is a right that I now understand is actually a privilege that professional journalists risk their lives for. In the wake of the North Korea-Sony episode, heads rolling in the Middle East, and now Paris, I realize that an unfettered press is something that can be wrested away from us easily.
But you and the OP have your own horse to ride. Political correctness should be beside the point, but go ahead and grind your own axes if you must.
That’s a hell of a lot of work to demand, just to define a term! Could you successfully define “liberal” or “libertarian” or “Zionist” or…or anything, if you were required to fulfill all the steps in your post here?
“Political Correctness” is a fairly spurious term, but it does have an actual meaning. It refers to censorship in service of a more egalitarian society, something some people favor…but which most, including most egalitarians themselves, don’t really. Examples are people trying to get Huckleberry Finn removed from libraries, because it contains offensive language.
The term is spurious, because it’s usually thrown out as an accusation against others, rather than being a position actually adopted by any large segment of society. I don’t know anyone who says, “Yes, I follow a Politically Correct system of morals and ethics.”
You got one definition for “political correctness” and you offered one example. Maybe Iamnotivan has a different definition and has some different examples. In the OP, he offered no definitions and no examples. Does he want to debate or not? If he doesn’t, he just came here to insult us. If he does want to debate, he’s got to make it clear what he’s talking about. The words “liberal,” “conservative,” “libertarian,” etc. would also require definitions and examples if that were what he was talking about, but it isn’t. I know how debates like this go, and without a definition and some examples of political correctness the thread would quickly become pointless.
So, again, Iamnotivan, tell us what you object to and why you object to it. Give us a clear definition and some clear examples. If you don’t want to do that, then I assume that you don’t really want to debate.
Well hey, guess what: this thread ain’t about freedom of speech. Obviously freedom of speech should be the first concern. It’s what matters. But the OP said something phenomenally stupid about “political correctness” and I felt it was my duty to correct him.
Hey wise guy, here’s a great idea: if you think it doesn’t matter, don’t come into a thread about it.
Nicely done <applause>