Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Verily, 'tis the taste of summer!

Especially in a big jug with lemonade and a bunch of fruit floating on top.

sebster wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

halonachos wrote:First of all, I have no idea where I'm presenting some sort of fantasy of a poor oppressed man when I was saying that two people of different races doing the same thing in the same context are of the same character. You were reading far too much into it sebster, perhaps just trying to find something to argue about.

You said that a black person who does a heroic thing will get more credit for it than a white person who does a heroic thing. That's a ludicrous fantasy.

It doesn't support political correctness. That's you hyperfocusing on a trivial element of the film, for the sake of a crusade against an entirely fictitious thing.

Firstly Sebster I would have to tell you to actually read the post in question, I said that if a white person saves an evil person's life then they are less of a hero than a black person who saves an innocent person's life. That was said to serve as an example of when I said that "Of course if its all in the same context besides color of skin" to show that in different context they would be different despite doing the same action(saving life).

I would kindly ask you to step off of your pseudo high-horse and maybe put on a pair of glasses.

Political Correctness is very much alive and well Sebster, the stigma of being declared a bigot lasts forever and is commonly associated with white trash(you know all of the hillbilly jokes that use backwards hicks as their main component right?) which in and of itself is not very positive. Racism is usually related to ignorant white trash and nothing else really, its just another enjoyable stereotype.

I do like Pimms...
Good for summer...

Pimms is basically Gin so it's a cousin of gin and tonic so I was right.

I like my G&T with a slice of lime.

Polonius wrote:Sebster: don't forget the #1 rule of OT: nobody is more opressed than white christians!

Do you think if we suggest that for the windows header thingies they'll accept it?

Frazzled wrote:Wait I thought the #1 rule was rum superior, gin inferior?

In card games sure, but not in liquor.

halonachosquote wrote:Firstly Sebster I would have to tell you to actually read the post in question, I said that if a white person saves an evil person's life then they are less of a hero than a black person who saves an innocent person's life. That was said to serve as an example of when I said that "Of course if its all in the same context besides color of skin" to show that in different context they would be different despite doing the same action(saving life).

Sorry, I misread you. My mistake.

Political Correctness is very much alive and well Sebster, the stigma of being declared a bigot lasts forever and is commonly associated with white trash(you know all of the hillbilly jokes that use backwards hicks as their main component right?) which in and of itself is not very positive. Racism is usually related to ignorant white trash and nothing else really, its just another enjoyable stereotype.

There is no political correctness movement. There was an idea that bubbled around leftwing academia, always more dismissed than accepted, that finally arrived in the late 80s and early 90s, that was mocked into silliness from arrival. It contributed far more to stand up comedy routines than anything else.

Well, every other group except that rare group of aggressively outspoken folk that like to say things without thinking about whether or not they offend other people. For those folk, previously accepted values like courtesy and manners have become this new thing called political correctness, something to wage against. For those folk, the old fashioned idea that there was no point saying an offensive thing without a good reason suddenly became this 'political correctness'.

This became such a fixation they went looking for every possible instance in which someone checked their language, and declared it was surrendering to political correctness, no matter how trivial the check, no matter how offensive the alternative might have been.

I mean here we are, in the middle of a thread about the name of a dog in a movie about blowing up a dam. Do you realise how trivial that dog is? Yet the idea that the name of the dog might be changed in a war film that was never noted for it's historical accuracy has you claiming you'll never see the movie.

That's what political correctness is. It's a braineater. It makes people fixate on the ridiculous, to stand their ground nobly in defence of nothing.

To be fair seb, there were some notable issues in the 90's, at least in the US, with things like "speech codes" on college campuses and the like.

As you said, most people (even racists) feel that using racial slurs after being asked not to is, well, rude. But there's a chunk of people that don't wear their seatbelt because they don't like being told what to do.

Whats interesting is the number of posters on this thread that have directly or indirectly called other posters racists on other threads (me likely also).

Polonius wrote:To be fair seb, there were some notable issues in the 90's, at least in the US, with things like "speech codes" on college campuses and the like.

Political correctness was the idea of changing language to make it more inclusive. It meant telling people not to say black, and saying african american instead, stuff like that.

It never meant 'don't say offensive things'. We'd already figured that out.

With or without political correctness, it wouldn't have been acceptable to make a film in 2011 with a called by the n-word.

But there's a chunk of people that don't wear their seatbelt because they don't like being told what to do.

We used to call them two year olds.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Whats interesting is the number of posters on this thread that have directly or indirectly called other posters racists on other threads (me likely also).

I don't believe anyone has.

sebster wrote:

But there's a chunk of people that don't wear their seatbelt because they don't like being told what to do.

We used to call them two year olds.

Organ donors is a more common term.

Orlanth wrote:

sebster wrote:

But there's a chunk of people that don't wear their seatbelt because they don't like being told what to do.

We used to call them two year olds.

Organ donors is a more common term.

NO NO NO
Thats motorcycle riders who don't wear helmets.

Frazzled wrote:

Orlanth wrote:

sebster wrote:

But there's a chunk of people that don't wear their seatbelt because they don't like being told what to do.

We used to call them two year olds.

Organ donors is a more common term.

NO NO NO
Thats motorcycle riders who don't wear helmets.

Both actually, and pedal cyclists too.

Political Correctness is not saying terms to offend people due to race, creed, or sex. Age is not a protected catagory.

Sebster, you do realize that in hiring practices there is actually a standard of measure the relates the number of white males to the number of minorities hired right? Yes the practice is still very much alive and it has caused some people who test for a raise in fire departments or police departments to have their results canceled out because a minority was unable to pass. There was a notable case where a fire department told some passing candidates that their results were not taken because of the fact that not enough minorities passed the test and so the test was thrown out.

I would have thought political correctness is just a new term for not being rude.
Language evolves and so does society. We have to change our language to suit the times. If anything it is a good thing. If you aren't intending to cause offense and you do anyway it just makes you look like a fool.
If you are intending to cause offense then that is a different thing entirely...

purplefood wrote:I would have thought political correctness is just a new term for not being rude.
Language evolves and so does society. We have to change our language to suit the times. If anything it is a good thing. If you aren't intending to cause offense and you do anyway it just makes you look like a fool.
If you are intending to cause offense then that is a different thing entirely...

I believe its called comedy in some circles; I'm looking at you Dave Chapelle, Carlos Mencia, Daniel Tosh, and George Lopez. Maybe a bit of Robin Williams as well, but Robin Williams is better than the others.

I think you're making the argument larger than it actually is.

We're talking about the name of a dog in a movie, not a global crackdown by the mind police. In many respects I happen to agree with you on this topic, halonachos, I just don't think this is the venue.

Let me qualify that statement though, I agree with you to the point that someone's freedom of speech overrides someone else's desire to not be offended. Of course, if you call a black person a SEE FORUM POSTING RULES() and you get your teeth knocked out I'm perfectly okay with that, as well.

halonachos wrote:Political Correctness is not saying terms to offend people due to race, creed, or sex. Age is not a protected catagory.

Sebster, you do realize that in hiring practices there is actually a standard of measure the relates the number of white males to the number of minorities hired right? Yes the practice is still very much alive and it has caused some people who test for a raise in fire departments or police departments to have their results canceled out because a minority was unable to pass. There was a notable case where a fire department told some passing candidates that their results were not taken because of the fact that not enough minorities passed the test and so the test was thrown out.

Again, the legal standard is not a simple rule where there has to be a given ratio. But courts generally question (rightly so) why one race passes a test vastly more often than another one.

Even then, if the test is shown to evaluate essential skills/knowledge/aptitude, it'll hold up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_Impact

There is an older, 80% rule. Basically, the idea is that if all things are equal, the ratio of one group hired should be 80% of the ratio of the most hired group. So if 50% of white applicants are hired, at least 40% of black applicants should be hired.

This is only true when the employer can't show a reason why they hired the white people at a higher rate (better education, etc) that actually related to the job.

Monster Rain wrote:I think you're making the argument larger than it actually is.

We're talking about the name of a dog in a movie, not a global crackdown by the mind police. In many respects I happen to agree with you on this topic, halonachos, I just don't think this is the venue.

Let me qualify that statement though, I agree with you to the point that someone's freedom of speech overrides someone else's desire to not be offended. Of course, if you call a black person a SEE FORUM POSTING RULES() and you get your teeth knocked out I'm perfectly okay with that, as well.

As am I, if the person feels offended to the point of kicking my teeth in I'll probably still say it to him around the straw I'm sucking baby food through though. Either that or press charges for assault... I would be more accepting of him spewing racist terms towards me though, words for words, fists for fists.

I don't know what that means.

Don't know what, what means?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I mean that if a black guy comes up to me and calls me some derogatory term for whites I would respond with a derogatory word for a black person. That would be an equal response to what was going on.

Now if a black person called me a derogatory term and I kicked him in the face, that's not really equal because I escalated the situation and I should be charged for assault.

Now if I punched him and he punched me back, that's equal yet again although I would probably still be charged for assault because I punched first.

I totally want to be part of the mind police...

Well, I don't know about the mind police but there are the dream police who arrest people while they're in their beds. They don't get paid vacation though so that's something to consider.

Mind Police sounds like a really cool band...
Global Crackdown by the Mind Police...
I want to listen to that...

purplefood wrote:Mind Police sounds like a really cool band...
Global Crackdown by the Mind Police...
I want to listen to that...

I'd buy that for a dollar.

Track Listing

1. Blame the Victim

Well played...

I'm beginning to wonder if anyone caught my reference.

They're looking for me.

Thank you Monster Rain, the acknowledgement makes references all the more better.

halonachos wrote:Sebster, you do realize that in hiring practices there is actually a standard of measure the relates the number of white males to the number of minorities hired right?

And you realise that isn't political correctness. Words have meanings.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:Let me qualify that statement though, I agree with you to the point that someone's freedom of speech overrides someone else's desire to not be offended.

I think we're all okay with that.

The point here is that the writer has every right to keep the name of the dog, if he so wanted to. It's just he's looked at what's actually important in the story, and what is not, and decided there's no value in causing needless offence.

Because, you know, it's a dog. In a movie about blowing up a damn.

Halonachos appears outraged at the decision of the writer to exercise personal judgement.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

halonachos wrote:As am I, if the person feels offended to the point of kicking my teeth in I'll probably still say it to him around the straw I'm sucking baby food through though. Either that or press charges for assault... I would be more accepting of him spewing racist terms towards me though, words for words, fists for fists.

At the end of the day, this is all just idealistic poppycock, though, isn't it?

I mean, ultimately you're so fixated on your right to say a word, that you've stopped to consider if you should say that word.

@ Sebster, political correctness deals with actions and words. Making sexual motions in the direction of a female is as politically correct as making fun of a woman for menstruation.

Is it idealism, sure why not, ideals are good to have because without them we wouldn't have a starting point for negotiations.