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.

Frazzled wrote:Can't say war on terror. Its now a war on fluffy bunnies!

It was never a war on terror, get the hell over it.

Frazzled wrote:Can't say war on terror.

Are you guys finally calling it a war in error as well now then ? 'bout time.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Can't say war on terror. Its now a war on fluffy bunnies!

It was never a war on terror, get the hell over it.

Correct-its now an overseas contingency operation
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/03/23/the_end_of_the_global_war_on_t.html

Don't forget its no longer a terrorist attack. Per the new Secretary its now to be referred to as "man-caused disasters."

Don't forget its no longer a terrorist attack. Per the new Secretary its now to be referred to as "man-caused disasters."

When did Iraq crash planes into us again? I'm sorry I think I missed that one. Or are you just being flippant here? I can't tell any more.

When was Iraq mentioned...at all?

Frazzled wrote:When was Iraq mentioned...at all?

The war on terror was the war on Iraq, afghanistan was a "police action" by the administration. They didn't need silly names and the axis of evil to justify Afghanistan.

man-caused disasters

, nicely phrased. *steals*

......

....*political joke of your preference here*

man-caused disasters

Geez, that's an awfully phrased description. However, I agree with the Daily Show's assessment that these phrases are likely purposely convoluted in attempt to calm people the down. I would much rather deal with this awkward terminology then terminology design to create blind panic.

You mean like if we don't pass this spending bill (largest in the history of mankind) the recession will be unending talk?

Frazzled wrote:You mean like if we don't pass this spending bill (largest in the history of mankind) the recession will be unending talk?

Well no, and this is where things might get complicated for you. Iraq was not threat to america. At all. In any way. The total collapse of the banking industry and the collapse of western economic world would have a very adverse effect on peoples lives. The war on terror was a just a crap name used to justify a poorly conceived war by connecting it to some sort of over arching non existent unified islamic jihad front.

Ones a big deal and needs to be treated as such.
The other was a naming convention used to justify something that couldn't stand on its own.

Whats with you? Do you have Iraq on the brain or what?

EDIT: here's more
Investments, instead of taxes/government spending.
Correcting her tax statements, instead of being caught as a tax cheat and paying what you owe to the IRS.
death tax, instead of inheritance tax

and personal
DPS, instead of incompetent boobs at the motor vehicle office who can't even take a picture right and make me come back three times...

Frazzled wrote:Whats with you? Do you have Iraq on the brain or what?

Well we're talking about the war on terror, and thats what that is. They are the same thing. In a discussion on Obamas renaming of things (like renaming toxic assets) its going to come up as a needed change. The war on terror was incredibly inaccurate and manipulative in its presentation. If you want to discuss some of the relabeling of economic issues I'll be all with you (though fearmongering harms economic recovery), but when you lulz up the renaming of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan I'm going to disagree.

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Can't say war on terror. Its now a war on fluffy bunnies!

It was never a war on terror, get the hell over it.

Correct-its now an overseas contingency operation
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/03/23/the_end_of_the_global_war_on_t.html

Don't forget its no longer a terrorist attack. Per the new Secretary its now to be referred to as "man-caused disasters."

The collapse of the Lake Pontchartrain levee might come under that heading too.

No thats "unintended impacts from redeployed waterway funds" (ie using the money to build casinos and non-levee projects for 40 years-thank you state of Louisiana).

remember boys and girls
*Its pronounced Lake Ponchentrain
*There are gators in the Lake.
*Sometimes sharks coming into it as well.
*If someone offers you chickory coffee without offering cream (not half and half but real cream) and a pound of sugar, they are your enemy and are tryign to poison you. If they offer cream and sugar they are you friend but be sure to drop in 8-10 spoonfuls of sugar. Even then your head might explode.

Frazzled wrote:No thats "unintended impacts from redeployed waterway funds" (ie using the money to build casinos and non-levee projects for 40 years-thank you state of Louisiana).

I would prefer to blame the CNN reporters who were standing on it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-404516/Camp-coffee-forced-change-label-PC-brigade.html

Better than "mtn dew".

Seriously, what the hell was with that?

JD21290 wrote:

As for the people in thread with the 'eff off back to your own country if you want to speak your foreign language' attitude, that's exactly the same sort of ignorant crap people were saying during the Windrush, same cloaked racism, different target

not 100% my attitude, but close.
if people plan on living in a certain country then they should atleast know how to read and speak english, not just to make it easier for everyone, but to avoid any risks.
how many warnings signs do you see about on the roads that are written in different languages?

a friend of mine works as a school caretaker, they have recently employed a polish caretaker there, he decided to clean the urinals with bleach, because that didnt work he then threw acid in them, casing a similar effect to mustard gas and causing the school to be evacuated, when he was asked why he did it (a translater was needed for this)
he simply said he could not understand the labels on the chemicles.
if that safe?

its all well and good for people to preach PC and try and enforce it, but it works both ways.
we must respect everyone, but they must also respect us, i can think of plenty of examples of PC gone mad, which is why im happy that im off to aus once ive finished up my 2 more years in the army.

How about instead of 'send the buggers back' we say 'train all staff dealing with hazardous chemicals correctly'. That seems to be the problem here, not the language, the incompetence. If you get a spare half an hour, please watch the video from the first post (it's on iplayer too), I promise you'll laugh, and you might learn something.

I know I've kind of walked into the middle of all this, but there's an observation I'd like to put out there.

It's one of the few aspects of PC that I've noticed making me have to think before I speak. It's when you have a problem with someone of a different colour to you. The problem isn't their colour, it's some personal dispute (IE; they've wasted your time, been rude to you, proven themselves to be an incompotent individual, done something bad to you or your property, etc) but the second that I (a white guy, with freakin dreadlocks I might add ) complain about "Jack Hsu at the micky-Ds" being the slackest staff member and always cocking up orders, someone jumps down my throat and accuses me of only saying that coz he's chinese. I could go on but there's little point in repeating the same story with different actors. So, do other people get this? The assumption that if you have a problem with someone of a different ethnicity, that the reason you have the problem is RACIAL, when it's really obviously NOT?

Sounds like racism by stupid people to me. Not being able to see someone's faults due to their race is no different from not being able to see someone's strengths.

With extra ability to be self-congratulatory, maybe.

Frazzled wrote:Don't forget its no longer a terrorist attack. Per the new Secretary its now to be referred to as "man-caused disasters."

Which is ridiculous, but has nothing to do with PC. The trick here is that once 'man-caused disasters' become an issue for the Dept of Homeland Security, then you can start spending Homeland Security money on stuff like global warming. It's a trick for the sake of politics, nothing to do with PC at all.

Ktulhut wrote:I know I've kind of walked into the middle of all this, but there's an observation I'd like to put out there.

It's one of the few aspects of PC that I've noticed making me have to think before I speak. It's when you have a problem with someone of a different colour to you. The problem isn't their colour, it's some personal dispute (IE; they've wasted your time, been rude to you, proven themselves to be an incompotent individual, done something bad to you or your property, etc) but the second that I (a white guy, with freakin dreadlocks I might add ) complain about "Jack Hsu at the micky-Ds" being the slackest staff member and always cocking up orders, someone jumps down my throat and accuses me of only saying that coz he's chinese. I could go on but there's little point in repeating the same story with different actors. So, do other people get this? The assumption that if you have a problem with someone of a different ethnicity, that the reason you have the problem is RACIAL, when it's really obviously NOT?

Except that isn't PC. That's playing the race card.

PC would be the idea that when you complain about someone you don't call him by a racial perjorative. It means that before you say something you stop and think 'will this offend the other person', and is really nothing more than simple tact.

Political Correctness is not defined in an iron-clad manner.

It can mean a huge variety of things, even when it contradicts itself.

Like "conservative" and "liberal".

Orkeosaurus - It's not blindness to someones faults because of race, its the attitude that anyone saying something bad about a person of a different culture is saying that bad thing for racially motivated reasons rather than normal ones.

Sebster - Good points, but what I'm trying to say is, that at least in my part of New Zealand, it is politically un-correct to critisize anyone of different creed or culture, because you're obviously doing it as an act of racial or religious hatred as opposed to a personality or behavioural conflict.

I'm not sure if I've explained myself any better though...

"WHAT!! All you people are being racist towards those of caucasian heritage!"

Just something ive always wanted to say, even though its not politically correct...white people cant call any race other than other white people racist. Thats racist man.

Yeah, you have to call it reverse racism for anyone to understand what you mean. Reverse? Anyone can be racist! The whole thing is ass-backwards.

Ktulhut wrote:Orkeosaurus - It's not blindness to someones faults because of race, its the attitude that anyone saying something bad about a person of a different culture is saying that bad thing for racially motivated reasons rather than normal ones.

Hmm, I can see that too. Annoying, I'll agree.

"Reverse racism" is a ridiculous euphemism. The opposite of racism is not judging others based on race, not more racism.

Also, more silliness: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-racist_mathematics

Not terrible, just really, really pointless.

If people just didn't get mad about when they are treated the same as everyone else when they're a different race, everything would be hunky-dory.
Racism and anything that deals with it annoys me.

Silly is the best word for the entire situation I brought up, really. More sillyness - I've been called a nazi (that's right, not just any racist, but a card carrying member of the third reich ) for having this discussion before.

Ktulhut wrote:Sebster - Good points, but what I'm trying to say is, that at least in my part of New Zealand, it is politically un-correct to critisize anyone of different creed or culture, because you're obviously doing it as an act of racial or religious hatred as opposed to a personality or behavioural conflict.

I'm not sure if I've explained myself any better though...

Yeah, I'm not trying to diminish people using race as a defence in an unrelated issue, it's certainly a real situation. I'm just saying I don't think it's really a political correctness issue, and that lumping the two things together doesn't really help either.