Is Wimpy Banned, Too?
by Blake on Aug 26, 2009 at 09:56 Political
Liberals and “progressives”, are trying to co-opt the language so as not to give offense to anyone, including terrorists, I mean “extra-territorial fighters”. No more War on Terror, just the weakly titled “Overseas Contingency Operations”. Talk about mealy- mouthed, wishy- washy, weak- kneed questionably appropriate responses to what is happening- these people are actually afraid that words hurt in a physical way.
So, just to make sure that they do not offend someone, they are going into our children’s textbooks, so they can brain wash indoctrinate educate our precious little small pre- teen, adolescent children. First up is the term that has been around for as long as we have had a country, Founding Fathers. Nope, can’t have that- it has something that indicates a male presence, and that can’t be tolerated, especially from the feminists pit bulls assertive females- Founding persons, indicating an amorphous vague “person”, is Okay.
Chairman is out also- “Chair-Person” is in. Congressman is taboo- “member of Congress” is the term to use. Even the Geico Caveman has that dreaded three letter word- man, so out it goes, and “cave person” enters the lexicon of mushy, weak, cowardly words that liberals are afraid to use.
But this extends to other words- words that you might not think were objectionable. Words like “Able- bodied”– now, you might say, not that- there could be nothing objectionable to that, but apparently there are a LOT of liberals who are not able bodied, as physically able, which might explain why evidently words DO hurt them, apparently A LOT, because they are so busy feeling the emotional impact of these words, and trying, I mean actively TRYING to find words that might, in some bizarro world of their delusional paranoia justifiable worry hurt them. Liberals apparently, wear their nerves on the outside of their body. Can I say that? OK? For now?
The problem, is that these wimps deluded people A$$hats gentle people think that they should purge delete, gently lift these “objectionable” words from our children’s textbooks. They actually have the gall hubris arrogance right in their minds to do this, but it’s politically correct speech gone wrong on steroids, and will lead to less comprehension than if you had just plain speech that conveyed the gist of the idea concisely.
Now the Socialists Communists Progressives Liberals who ever in the hell they want to call themselves today want to dance around the meanings of words, and that creates a “Tower of Babel” effect, where you end up not quite sure of what someone means, and that gives the speaker “wiggle room” to vacillate like Bill Clinton did with his “Depends on what the definition of “is” is”- what arrogant BS.
What is wrong with the word “teenagers”? Now people want to use “adolescents” exclusively to describe teens. I, however, see no need to change my speech to suit someone’s very tender feelings. These people need to develop a thicker skin.
In everyday talk, black mark is now verboten, presumably because someone might object to the word “black”- likewise, indian, (excepting Indian cuisine) or any word that even one person finds objectionable. This is so ridiculous that I hardly have the words to describe this phenomenon.
I am sure “niggardly” is on the list, as is “picayune“- even though those words do not mean anything insidious, or derogatory, except as describing someone’s behavior. I guess that is enough in these wimpy times to earn a strike from the wordsmiths on the left.
They need to be careful, however, or soon they will have abandoned or deleted almost all words, except, as I have found out, apparently wingnut and moron are still fair game for them.
Probably not for us on the right.
I guess we are handicapped verbally constricted in the words we can use.
And that’s a pity- we know how to speak plainly.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: free speech, politicall correct, textbooks
Certainly PC’ness (if you will) overreaches and gets asinine at times. But let’s not use that to for instance ignore very real gender barriers that exist even in the language of our society. There is nothing wrong with switching to gender neutral language as a way of reinforcing the successful work of the gender equality movement.
You know the saying- “…words will never hurt me?” Well going overboard, which a faction of your side has been doing ad nauseum for years is what is happening here.
I realize that language is a living thing, subject to a certain amount of flex in its usage, but there should be a certain logic to any changes. To change something because of a “possible” kneejerk reaction is, I think, totally unjustified and ridiculous.
The “gender equality” movement makes me want to nave a movement of my own- they need to get over themselves.
One of the classiest people I eve knew was female, expected to be treated as a lady, was not the “ball- breaker” feminist that “needs” this language, but could cut you to pieces verbally with a smile on her face, and you would not even know you were bleeding as you walked away.
She never needed, nor wanted for special language to be invented for her. She is worth literally millions of dollars, and I admire her very much to this day. A true lady.
You also have to ask yourself- do you want “gender- neutral” bathrooms? How far do we take this needless cause?
What kind of movement do you have in mind and why?
There are a handful of women alive today that couldn’t vote at one time and many many more who’s mother’s couldn’t, and you want to muddy the water with talk about gender neutral bathrooms? Just because there are kooky things here and there doesn’t invalidate every part. Remember again that slippery slope is a logical fallacy.
“slippery slope is a logical fallacy”- not so. Even Freud said, “Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.”
Point being that this can and has been taken way too far. There ARE differences between men and women, and these should not be minimized. You can be equal AND different also, without giving up your femininity or anything else.
Its just like bigotry- it will always be there because there will always be ignorant people. hat’s just a fact.
BLK: ““slippery slope is a logical fallacy”- not so.”>>
DAR
The a slippery slope argument is a classical informal fallacy.
BLK: “there will always be ignorant people. hat’s[sic] just a fact.>>
DAR
Indeed.
D.
I speak of you D- you really need to associate with something other than your goats- they’re just not open- minded enough for you to see the big picture- you see no problem, which is why when we have to haul your butt out of the fire, I WILL expect a thank you, because you are willfully ignoring signs that our Republic is in dire trouble from these thugs now, and if we wait too long, we will have that much more difficult a time dislodging these parasites from our government- AND other nations will seek to exploit our troubles.
It could end up where the memories of Hussein are comparable to the last days of Mussolini. No one wants that.
So who is saying that the slippery slope is not a logical fallacy?
Bigd: “who is saying that the slippery slope is not a logical fallacy?”
DAR
Blake. See above.
Context, Darrel- always remember the context.
So they could not vote. That was then and this is now. They caught up and in many cases have set asides under affirmative action. Minority and women owned businesses get unfair advantages in the government contracting process.
My heritage is Indian and our land was taken from us and we were killed. It happened. I would not go around saying I got a bad deal because of it.
No matter what the feminists and the metrosexuals say, men and women are different. There are reasons for the difference. As a group men are stronger than women. Just a pure fact. Women are superior to men in some things men superior to women in others which is why a man and woman together makes a formidable team. They are a synergistic existence…
In any event, our society has changed and women have equal rights as they should but I refuse to keep up this charade about needed to have all kinds of programs because some real old women could not vote when they were young just like i refuse to play the game about slavery when no one who is alive was a slave or owned one.
But along the equality lines, women have to do less on a physical fitness test to get into the Service Academies. Men have to do more for the same benefit.
Men have to do more than women to pass fitness tests in the Army (and I am sure the rest of the services) which means two people, one man, one woman of equal time and grade will get the exact same pay. Except the woman does not have to do as much to earn hers.
And women cannot be drafted. Should we change this at the same time we are increasing the phyisical fitness standards so they have to do as much as men?
And this is the case in police departments and fire departments as well…
You brought it up so I thought I would address it. I understand the reason that these things take place and have no problem with it. I am just saying that if you insist on every damned thing being exactly equal then I demand that they be equal in what I have discussed and they must be equal up to the standards men now have and not allow the men’s standards to be lowered to accommodate women.
So we shouldn’t seek to change things like our language in order to counter racial or gender stereotypes?
Language is a living thing, subject to changes in its usage- but this PC stuff is akin to a cancer, which is doing the living language no good. Of course not all changes are bad, but excessive changes, changes made just because one can, does not mean one should.
You have to understand also, sometimes a stereotype is true, and perhaps should not be changed. A good example is when they broadcast a BOLO (be on the lookout) for say, a robbery or rape suspect and give everything, height, weight, but omit race- then you really do not know who you are looking for, do you?
To counter racial and sex (more appropriate than gender which deals more with grammar) stereotypes? The intent of what is said has to be taken into account. If you say someone was blackballed it has nothing to do with race. It has to do with a voting process in which a white ball is yes and a black one no. In organizations where you are voted in some require all white balls to get in. If you don’t make it they say you were black balled. How does that have a racial component?
Like white in rice means very close to so how is that racial?
Some of the proposed changes are stupid. I can see where chairman is outdated though the word man could men the sex or mankind which covers women (remember that man and men is part of woMAN and woMEN). Chairperson is OK but some stuff they do is stupid. Calling the kettle black is not racial.
Are we to take all references to color out of our language because someone might get offended. No green with jealousy because you might be talking about green card immigrants. No red with rage because Indians might get upset. No feeling blue because those blue guys who throw marshmallows into each other’s mouths might get upset…
Which stereotype are they trying to change when they don’t broadcast race in a BOLO?
Its a PC thing, where people are afraid to even mention race- a factor that is actually very pertinent in finding the perp and not nabbing the wrong gut.
You will find this is prevalent in newspapers also- you are not told what race a suspect is- unless there’s a picture.
Quite annoying, and never informative.
I don’t think there is a stereotype if race is mentioned in a BOLO. The race baiters get up in arms and scream racism but if they said the suspect was a white male then you could ignore all females and black males. If they said it was a black woman you could ignore all men and white women. Color is a description and skin color is as important as hair color and eye color when giving a description of a suspect.
Only a moron would NOT give the race of the person they were looking for.
Funny though, in Baltimore they stopped the race thing in BOLOs because of griping from the race baiters. Then the beltway snipers started shooting people. The police said the perps were likely white. There was no outcry, the police and public were looking for a white guy in a panel van because that was the profile. They ignored black men in cars at roadblocks and let them pass through but stopped white guys, especially panel vans. The beltway snipers, two black men, drove through one such roadblock because they were not the right color to be stopped.
I point that out to show how color is important in describing (when you actuall have an eye witness or a video and not some profile) but also that there was no outcry when white was used in the description…
Yes some stereotypes are true of some people. We have these stereotypes because the behavior has been demonstrated enough to give that impression. Many are just narrow minded, bigoted thinking but some are true. And we all stereotype. Look at how you stereotype conservatives.