No, no, no. That is a free pass for bullies.
The bully picks a fight with the <gay/black/jewish/etc.> kid. Kid defends himself by fighting back. Teacher intervenes, and both kids are suspended. But this is the 3rd bully that has started a fight with the <gay/black/jewish/etc.> kid, so based on his record for fighting, that kid is expelled from school. Hardly a fair result.
The balls don’t get that low.
“That low” as in “into the water”? I wouldn’t have thought so myself, but octopus and watchwolf49 say they do.
Could you testicle-possessors figure out the Straight Dope on this and get back to me? Thx.
Sure: If your balls touch the water you’re doing it wrong. Really wrong. Creatively wrong.
Mine do.
I can swing them to and fro, I can tie them in a knot , I can tie them in a bow.
I’d say the trend will be the opposite of what I understand you to imply. I was listening briefly at the gym the other day to some daytime talk show lady ranting about how Leonardo DiCaprio was basically a molester for dating a 19 yr old Victoria’s Secret model. ‘The brain is still not fully formed at 19’.
Despite the arguable logical inconsistency with a concept of girls/women’s empowerment, I expect the future PC trend to be more and more approbation against males, just the male in the relationship, in sexual relationships with significantly younger females. That’s been the trend for a long time actually. Ages of consent were at one time lower or didn’t exist. Some of what counts as pedophelia now was no big deal generations ago, at least inside a heterosexual marriage where the women was the younger partner.
I don’t know if that’s any brilliant prediction, but strikes me a large % of the posts are citing things as future non-PC which are actually already non-PC. And as mentioned by others a lot of it is just a treadmill. There’s nothing fundamentally derogatory or disrespectful in ‘colored’ v ‘black’ v ‘African American’ and therefore no objective progress in that progression of terms. And in fact ‘colored’ is already partly recycled now as the more general term ‘people of color’ for anyone considering themselves something other than ‘white’.
That seems somewhat inconsistent to me, and pointing to the philosophical difference over ‘disparate impact’. It was justified IMO to ban voter literacy test exactly because as you state in the second paragraph they were intended to discriminate against black voters, and not instituted mainly out of a belief in the importance of voter literacy (and actually probably not administered particularly fairly in the more relevant cases either). You’re relying a lot on ‘not necessarily’ IOW. No it’s not 100% provable that every person in favor of voter literacy tests or administering them had malign motives or was unfair in their implementation, but in general there was plenty of discriminatory motive. And that’s what tainted the whole concept.
That contrasts IMO with more recent cases of goals such as creditworthiness of borrowers or measurement of objective academic achievement. In those cases lending or academic institutions have those things as specific and legitimate end goals. There’s typically no evidence of any racial intent at all, but it happens in the dynamics of US society there is a racially disparate impact of certain objective measures. In that case ‘disparate impact’ is just used as a way for society to sweep those differences under the rug because they are difficult to deal with in the political process by forcing de-emphasis on objective measures.
Again I think the inconsistency exemplified by saying ‘not necessarily the result of intentional discrimination’, then giving a baseline example, where it can be assumed all reasonable people agreed on the public policy outcome, that voter literacy tests had to go given the totality of circumstances, where intentional discrimination did play a major role. It doesn’t translate well to cases where there’s really no intent to discriminate, but groups just perform differently. There might be public policies which can ameliorate or eliminate those differences over time, or not, I don’t know/depends, but when ‘disparate impact’ is used as a reason to abandon objective measures of worthwhile goals it’s destructive to society and that’s a point often reached in recent times in IMO.
“Little people” is the preferred term by the group as a whole, who reject “dwarf,” except in clinical settings, because of it fairy tale connotations, and midget because of its extensive use in circus sideshows.
I predict “Down syndrome” will exclusively be called “Trisomy 21.” This is already happening out of a reluctance to honor the doctor who first identified it, because his theory of its origin was that people who had it were genetic throwbacks-- he himself named it “Mongolism,” because he thought Caucasian parents had literally given birth to an Asian child. He thought that evolution had proceeded “up” from apes through Africans, through “Mongols,” to Caucasians, but Caucasians could still produce “atavistic” children.
Granted, for his time, he was somewhat progressive-- he was an abolitionist, who thought he had disproved the theory of separate evolutions of the races, a theory that was used to justify slavery. Still, pretty messed up by our standards.
Can consumer behaviors be considered un-PC? I’m thinking about how future people will view driving gasoline-powered light-duty passenger vehicles.
Bill Clinton will be vilified and labeled a hateful homophobe for signing DOMA.
The tide’s already turning against him for his womanizing, which was considered immoral mainly by Biblethumpers in the 90s but now by feminists as well. And the way Lewinsky was treated is now recognized as completely unacceptable. Clinton is well on his way to villain status.
Oh, bullshit.
He’s now more popular than he was when he left office. If he could run for President again, he would beat any of the current candidate s, Republican or Democratic.
I agree with this. In fact I think he’s the only likeable thing about Hillary.
Yes, popular if you overlook his un-PC behavior because the economy. Which won’t really help him down the road. Bill Clinton means something positive to people who lived through the 1990s. All people will remember about him in a few decades is that he treated women like dirt.
Maybe not in the next twenty years, but I suspect that one day, saying you are “heterosexual” will be considered politically incorrect, due to its discriminatory nature.
You’re on to something. For years, it was politically useful to argue that our sexuality is fixed at birth, that we’re “born this way.” But now that gays have all the rights they’ve been demanding, you’re going to hear less and less about how we’re “born this way.” Instead, we’re going to hear more and more about how infinitely “fluid” our sexuality is.
Which will imply that, if you DON’T want to have sex with a member of your own gender, you must be a bigot.
All right, here’s a tidbit for thought: Catholic blogger Mark Shea has predicted that “Within our lifetimes, the Catholic Church will be condemned NOT for aiding and abetting pedophilia but for OPPOSING it.”
I think he’s right. Many/most on the Left have no principled opposition to adults having sex with 13 year olds. Hey, the very same Hollywood liberals who gave ***Spotlight ***an Oscar last year ADORE Roman Polanski and Woody Allen! Gay pedophile director Victor Salva has no problem finding work, does he?
One of these days, some likable gay male is going to come forward publicly with a 14 year old boyfriend. They will BOTH profess to be “in love,” and we’re going to be told it’s unfair to discriminate against them.
And if/when religious folks say “That’s DISGUSTING,” they’ll be called stupid Bible-thumping bigots. Again.
Gay people don’t want to fuck members of the opposite sex as much as straight people don’t want to fuck the same sex. There’s zero motivation for that policy.
And I can see fucking teenagers losing its stigma. But actual children? Not the same thing at all, and highly unlikely to ever be condoned by even a significant minority, let alone a majority.
Cite? There are tons of lefties on this board, and I’m unaware that any of them support legalizing sex between adults and 13 year olds.
Assuming all this is true, this might be an indictment of some assholes in Hollywood, but it says nothing about liberals at large, the vast majority of whom strongly oppose pedophilia.
I see no reason to believe this, considering that every advancement in relationship and marriage liberalization (legalization of interracial marriage and gay marriage) has been about the rights of consenting adults to be in legally recognized relationships, not about children at all.
(bolding mine) What alternate universe are you posting from?