We live in interesting times. In my view there is a dramatic increase not in racism and religious intolerance but in its rationalization; its justification.

What exactly is this thing "Political Correctness" ? Where did it come from? It certainly came to prominence as a concept in the late 20th early 21st century. Why?

Was it because of the the glaring absurdity of changing a child's story; for instance Black Beauty because in THIS instance the word 'Black' could be deemed as racist, or changing the name of a British pudding 'Spotted Dick' because the word 'Dick' was deemed to be offensive?

THAT to me is what spawned the terminology: 'Political Correctness'. A need for appeasement that verges on comedic farce!

OR:

has this terminology been seen as a perfect tool to justify cruelty, denial, bigotry, religious and racist intolerance?

THAT to me is how it is being used.

I am reminded of the saying: "Justice for me is being allowed to do and say what I want;- injustice is your preventing me from doing it".

I very obviously believe that the concept of 'political correctness' has been hijacked to justify an 'open slather' approach to the things I have listed.

What do YOU think?

Dear Ginx,

I think "political correctness" came into being in the 1980s.
And I agree with you - some of it is a bit excessive - in our attempts not to "offend."

However, having said that, do we really want to go back to the "good old days" of "plain speaking," and bring back terms like:
nig...ers, coons, dagos, wogs, poofs, spastics, and sheilas?

Dear Ginx,

Well, I've just had "political correctness" thrust upon me while I was typing my previous post to you.

I typed in all the "offending" words, like "nig...er, coon, dagos, wops, poofs, spastics, and sheilas," and low and behold up came the message, "Remove the profanity."

So I took out the extra letter 'g' in the first word - "nig...er" and guess what - none of the other words were considered 'offensive.'. ('Coons' in the US means the same thing as 'nig...er.')

Amazing!

Ginx. Excellent question. I entirely agree. As I understand it, the provenance of "political correctness" lies in 80s academia - specifically Ivy League - as an offshoot of relativism and postmodernism. Some benefits arose - we came to understand that the West didn't create the world by describing it. White, Western people learned to ask what it might feel like to a 12-year-old girl in Dafur. It strengthened some of the wins of the civil rights movement of the previous decade - we learned that Indigenous people aren't over-represented in prison because they're morally deficient but because they lack privileges the rest of us take for granted.

On the other hand, it also led, as you point out, to bullsh!t. The archetypal example, I think, is the white US professor who was fired for saying "niggardly". Or another, hounded out of his job for suggesting male and female brains work differently.

That idiocy is dying out, I hope. And a lot of postmodern relativism is no longer academically fashionable, for good reason - there is, after all, a canon of literature, truths in science, problems with cultural practices. We should always defend truth.

But while times are changing, the moniker "PC" has remained, morphed into a tool for justifying victim thinking among privilege people. On OLO, there is a constant lament along the lines of, "Women/gays/Abbos/refos/poofs get special treatment, and I'm the victim, but you can't say that because of PC culture." Which always makes me want to respond, "But you just said it then." A poster on another thread has claimed that PC forces (whoever they may be) who are preventing her from suggesting the Holocaust was less severe than claimed. It's a blustery, whiny attack which avoids having to prove the point. It's a common modus operandi on OLO. I asked a "male victim" (they type who laments, "If it was really about equal rights they'd call it "equalism", not "feminism") why he was so satisfied with victimhood. He said, "Because it works so well for women." I was simultaneously sad and cross.

Looking forward to responses.

I am totally opposed to obscenity in general & totally opposed to derogatory aimed at at someone's situation for which the individual had absolutely no input, i.e. is blameless.
Jovial profanity is obviously used for amusement & not to offend. What is offensive when someone feigns being offended simply to exercise their hidden prejudice.
It is interesting to see that all reports of derogatory terms on these threads focus on words to describe non-whites especially in Australia. I understand a little of one particular indigenous language & I can assure that it is not restricted by political correctness when people of non-indigenous descent are referred to.
Political correctness will be referred to as incomprehensibly silly in 50 years from now.

QUICK... send me to intesive care!

I am in total agreement with all thus far :)

GINX (about blardy time you actually raised an important issue)
FOXY "amen"
VANILA.. "yes yes yes"
INDIVIDUAL "toooo right mate"

PC is,like many other well intended trends.. hijacked by people who, when the froth is removed just want to have POWWWWERRRR over others.

The "Don't smack children" lobby is one BIG example.
The don't use any racial epithet mob are as bad.

If my joke includes an Irishbloke.. or Jew.. or anAussie or a Bishop.. sorry.. like it or leave..simple as that.

2 words the PC lobby love to use as weapons.. "Tolerance" and "Racism"

They are not about real tolerance or truely non racist actions/words.. they are about POWER. (No Foxy.. I'm not aiming that at u)

There are clearly well intended people who sincerely believe they are on the right track about this kind of thing, but they fall into the category of those who would venture to understand the Kosovo situation in terms of 'human rights' rather than the real source of the problem which begins around 1369.

Or.. the Middle East.. again.. trying to understand something in terms of 'human rights' when the conflict.. its dimensions and roots go back to the birth of Ishmael and Isaac.

Nothing is quite so deluded as those wandering about the Holy Land with wide naive "peace" eyes.. dribbling about 'human rights' as IF.. as IFF... the parties to the conflict see such things in any other way than a 'convenient tool for temporary gains'..

They learn the language of PC/HR and then seek to 'speak it' for the ears of Western peaceniks, HR groups, Leftoids, the UN and sponsors..but inside..they know what's going on.

Foxy: " ('Coons' in the US means the same thing as 'nig...er.')"

You may be surprised to hear that it's common parlance throughout rural Queensland too.

Having said that, while I've also encountered my share of PC-related nonsenses and frustrations over the years, in the absence of what used to be called "good manners" it was generally a benign phenomenon that seems to have had its day. At least we became reaccustomed with considering the perspectives of the objects of our utterances, as we generally do with those to whom we display courtesy.

If people were generally better mannered and more considerate of each other, we wouldn't need to continue with so-called "Political Correctness", but I'm not seeing a sudden efflorescence of civility and sociality - despite the 'Ruddslide' .

In my work, I am employed to express an opinion, efficiently and effectively. PC has no place in my mindset.

Having no time for political correctness, last Christmas, one of my daughters was taken to advising her sister’s new boyfriend to be prepared.

My girls are both outspoken and neither is intimidated by social-bullying of those who relish finding something to complain about.

Here I have done my usually thing and went looking for some quotes. The former is very close to what is true, Doris Lessing said something similar but made it pointedly political, which, of course political coreectness is not.

“Political correctness does not legislate tolerance; it only organizes hatred”

But the best quote I could find was

Political Correctness: A doctrine... which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Australia's early White settlers, unlike their American counterparts who left England to the promise of a richer and freer existence, were dragged kicking and screaming from the dungeons of Newgate and the hulks of Bristol to the living death of an isolated and barren land.

They had no time to pack a copy of whatever the equivalent of
"Fowler's Correct Modern Usage" was at the time.

Their language bore the marks of shackles and carried the inflections of the destitute and the whine of the shanty Irish.

It matured in a harsh land with few of the niceties; just as those little white pantaloons do not belong on the end of an Australian lamb chop, so our ways of speech are blunter than our antecedent
tongue.

I hope that with "Political Correctness" we won't lose the character that is our language:

"Johnno's so laid-back he's practically fly-blown!"

Interesting. Boaz, you misunderstood Ginx's post, and mine. While it must be satisfying for you and others here to congratulate themselves on their home-spun, plain-speaking ways, I believe Ginx's original point was that people use the term "political correctness" when actually they mean, "I'm intolerant on this issue, so I'll label my opponent PC and automatically win! Hurrah for me!"

Col Rouge: "In my work, I am employed to express an opinion, efficiently and effectively"

How reassuring that Col calls a black bean a black bean.

"PC has no place in my mindset"

I wish Col's mindset had no place in my PC ;)

CJ: "I wish Col's mindset had no place in my PC."

*splurts red wine all over computer screen*

"Interesting. Boaz, you misunderstood Ginx's post, and mine. While it must be satisfying for you and others here to congratulate themselves on their home-spun, plain-speaking ways, I believe Ginx's original point was that people use the term "political correctness" when actually they mean, "I'm intolerant on this issue, so I'll label my opponent PC and automatically win! Hurrah for me!"
Posted by Vanilla, Wednesday, 20 February 2008 9:06:28 PM"

^BINGO!!^

Thank-you;- all of you. Keep 'em coming!

Having just popped in next door, it is quite frankly a good idea for me to calm down 'til the morrow!
I would add though that I started this thread BECAUSE of the one next door. And yea verily I say unto youse; the OP on that thread has more than proved MY point!

Goodnight all!

My concern is the prevalence of 'groupthink', Fundamental Attribution Error and the death of Truth!
Anyone ever read 1984?
How the hell is humanity supposed to progress if we don't acknowledge our inherent differences, celebrate them (rather than tolerate them) and communicate clearly and honestly, feeling safe to do so?
I have not denied the holocaust. I am on a quest for truth. I heard somewhere that people denied the holocaust so I started researching. If I start posting links to information on this I'll fill pages.
Google it. Youtube it. Do what you will with the oracles you consult...but do, please, please, please try to disprove your own accepted self-evident truths. Challenge your own beliefs. If they hold up against your own attempts to disprove them then good. But have you genuinely attempted to disprove your own beliefs or do you set about seeking to avoid cognitive dissonance? It is OK to make mistakes. It is OK to go against group mentality. It is OK to be a voice in the wilderness.
Nice to meet you all by the way - refreshing to find people willing to debate and think!

It is always sad to see people using PC accusations to stifle debate. You can see this in Parliament on both sides of the House, where one speaker will purposely misconstrue what another has said to distract from the real purpose of the message and throw the person to the wolves (ie. the various forms of the PC brigades).

The danger of a propensity to be hampered by the restrictions of PC speech is truth often gets lost somewhere on the way. To live in fear because of what one might say no matter how disagreeable to others, is to lose our freedom of speech, one of the hallmarks of a democracy.

That is not to say that laws against discrimination and racial vilification are not appropriate but that in the example given about the holocaust, it is vital that we keep an open mind. Intelligent people can make their own conclusions from reading history and learning about the stories that have been told by those who suffered under the Nazis.

I don't remember his name, but a Jewish lawyer in the US once defended a man who could only be described as a racist and when asked why he would defend such a bigot, he stated words to the effect of ...I may not like what a person says but I will defend his right to say it. This was a famous quote and my insufficent memory does not do it justice, if somone has the exact wording they might like to post it.

while not making light of the real curse of PC [maybe a later post?] the word Coon as a cheese has withstood the storm over some 30 years, while other brands eg N** Boy were forced to change

So I had a quiet chuckle is Woolies in FNQ where there is a kiddies insulated lunch box promotion, a satchel with handle with goodies inside, mainly slices of cheese

on the side in big letters is COON and this is in Mossman where half the kids at the school are in fact black.

The absurdity of this is I would bet that there is not one instance of a black kid getting targeted carrying one of these around at school but I would think PC gone wrong says that the item would not even make the shelves in Mosman Sydney, where ther would not be one black kid at the school

to me that is what PC is more about, and what kept Howard going 11 years

Divorce Doctor- EXACTLY!! Now THAT is PC.

THIS is NOT:-

My concern is the prevalence of 'groupthink', Fundamental Attribution Error and the death of Truth!
Anyone ever read 1984?
How the hell is humanity supposed to progress if we don't acknowledge our inherent differences, celebrate them (rather than tolerate them) and communicate clearly and honestly, feeling safe to do so?
I have not denied the holocaust. I am on a quest for truth. I heard somewhere that people denied the holocaust so I started researching. If I start posting links to information on this I'll fill pages.
Google it. Youtube it. Do what you will with the oracles you consult...but do, please, please, please try to disprove your own accepted self-evident truths. Challenge your own beliefs. If they hold up against your own attempts to disprove them then good. But have you genuinely attempted to disprove your own beliefs or do you set about seeking to avoid cognitive dissonance? It is OK to make mistakes. It is OK to go against group mentality. It is OK to be a voice in the wilderness.
Nice to meet you all by the way - refreshing to find people willing to debate and think!
Posted by GI_Jane, Thursday, 21 February 2008 7:50:00 AM

This GIJ is patronizing bull.hit!

Who the hell do you think you're talking to??
Haven't you noticed in your refreshing way that those who 'debate and think' on OLO ( inclusive of those who I disagree strongly with!), have a pretty hefty degree of nous. Why do you feel it necessary to condescend to us as if you were marking us out of 10!!

Or could it possibly be that you have some sort of need to elevate yourself? Come down from your Ivory Tower and stop using your very clear intellect to justify some of your ludicrous assertions.

Ct/d:

Ct/d 2.

You WERE indeed not denying the holocaust, but you WERE seeking to diminish it ( I will go into this in due course). I am in Court this pm. and for most of tomorrow, but I look forward to some really meaty conversations with you....

Divorce Doctor: "I would think PC gone wrong says that the item would not even make the shelves in Mosman Sydney"

Coon cheese is named after Edward William Coon, who originally created it in 1931. I'm not aware that it's unavailable anywhere in Australia.

However, there was rather a silly legal challenge to the brand name by an Aboriginal activist a couple of years back, but it rightly failed. I think that was a case of misplaced offence rather than PC though.

I'm still frustrated that people who are posting here aren't *getting* Ginx's orginal point. Even if you disagree, why not tell us why, rather than pointing out how enlightened you are compared to the rest of the world.

As far as I'm concerned, the "PC brigade" is increasingly an invention of the right, a straw-restriction that negates the need for rigorous intellectual engagement.

It's not that it never happens - it most certainly does. Climate change sceptics, for example. The truth is that, whether you agree with them or not, some scientists absolutely believe that climate change is not man-made and our efforts to halt it are futile. Yet in this country, they're often demonised, as if their intent is to dismantle the entire Earth clod by clod while laughing maniacally.

I disagree with climate change sceptics, but I believe that, once we shut them out of the debate, we all suffer. Intellectually and environmentally.

The US is, as the US is wont to be, both better and worse. Again taking climate change as an example, John Christy, who was a member of the IPCC when they won the Nobel Peace Prize, said:

"My experience as a missionary teacher in Africa opened my eyes to this simple fact: Without access to energy, life is brutal and short. The uncertain impacts of global warming far in the future must be weighed against disasters at our doorsteps today. Bjorn Lomborg's Copenhagen Consensus 2004, a cost-benefit analysis of health issues by leading economists (including three Nobelists), calculated that spending on health issues such as micronutrients for children, HIV/AIDS and water purification has benefits 50 to 200 times those of attempting to marginally limit 'global warming'."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119387567378878423.html

Did people vehemently disagree? You betcha. (Specially when Lomborg gets involved.) But was he gagged because he message was not PC? Not in the least. This piece was published as an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal. It is intelligent, rational, and well-reasoned. It deserved an airing.

cont...

"I'm still frustrated that people who are posting here aren't *getting* Ginx's orginal point. Even if you disagree, why not tell us why, rather than pointing out how enlightened you are compared to the rest of the world."

not at all, my example of coon was just one such instance where at the coalface the black & white kids play together in perfect harmony and it is only those with something to gain that whip up PC, eg the LAWYER [not an aboriginal activist] in the coon case jp morgan mentions, or Howard/Brough in the NT offensive

"As far as I'm concerned, the "PC brigade" is increasingly an invention of the *right*, a straw-restriction that negates the need for rigorous intellectual engagement."

and with the greatest of respect, the expressions left/right are perhaps the greatest of all manifestations of PC, where it is suggested people dont think but simply align/realign themselves [which most do] with whichever "side" is most beneficial to their money making

two of the biggest - the Wimmens Industry and Family Law Industry both use PC extensively in their marketing

GINX...I can only work with what you put before us :)

But at least you are 'talking' meaningfully now.

"has this terminology been seen as a perfect tool to justify cruelty, denial, bigotry, religious and racist intolerance?"

YES.. it has. Those on the Left/Green end of politics, use it to bash, berate and bludgeon those who disagree with them by calling them all manner of names like

You hate us.
You're full of hatred.
You're bigoted.
You are a racist.

All these 'weapons' are used by the Green/left to achieve the things you mentioned.

They are 'racist' against most Australians and 'racist' in promoting the interests of minority races or religions.. this is as racist as it gets.

If you want 'bigotry' then look no further than a few of dear foxy's posts "Nothing you say will change my mind, I won't discuss my beliefs with you" .. (words to that effect)..

If you want DENIAL.. then just see how you and others react to well documented facts about Islam/Mohammad etc...

If you want 'cruelty' just cast a glance as what the Islamic council of Victoria put the 2 Dannies through, over a period of years simply because they chose to take offense and deliberately conspire with the UNequal Opportunity Commission in a dabble in religious intolerance and vilification and persecution.

You're in court ? hmmm not in court 3-3 in the County Court Melbourne r u ?

If so..I might hook up when I'm ripping into Rob Starry for looking at technicalities rather than evidence

"and with the greatest of respect, the expressions left/right are perhaps the greatest of all manifestations of PC, where it is suggested people dont think but simply align/realign themselves [which most do] with whichever "side" is most beneficial to their money making"

LOVE IT! (pity I'm not allowed to put in multiple exclamation marks)

So very true....

Dear BD,

You really are very unfair and certainly no gentleman.

You patronise people, you don't respect their opinion, and then you have the nerve to blame them for not wanting to discuss things with you.

Shame on you!

BD

Now I have heard everything. Are you really declaring that the self-righteous extreme Right do not avail themselves of PC and accusatory language to suit their spin?

As soon as anyone makes a statement perceived as left of centre out come the comments that remind us a little of the reds under the beds paranoia during the Cold War.

Eg.
You are a Communist or Commie sympathiser
You are a leftie
You are a unionist
You hate us

We all have different points of views and if you can support your view with logical argument or evidence then do it.

If you think political spin and word games are only the domain of one side of politics then you must have been asleep during the repressive Howard years.

cont… (sorry, went over limit before)

The voices who cry "PC!" have less to fear than they think. Holocaust deniers have scant evidence but plentiful paranoia – a giant Jewish conspiracy. Yet they answer questions as to the veracity of their evidence with accusations of being "silenced" by the forces of "political correctness". Argument is not suppression. You convince with merit, not aggressive victimhood.

GI Jane mentioned 1984. I've read it. I'm sure most here have. I'm also sure I'm not the first person to note that life in the 21st century is much more like Huxley (i.e. Brave New World) than Orwell. What stops the majority of people from thinking deeply about things is not this mythical PC culture but celebrity reporting and reality telly and New Idea and intellectual laziness. To me, this threatens our progress far more than the rather old-fashioned notion of political correctness.

DD — left/right as manifestations of PC? Obviously not literally, as the latter came later. And I’m not sure where money-making comes in to it. Can you explain your point further?

I agree the greatest danger is intellectual reductionism. Labelling someone’s argument PC is just a way of alchemising it into a more manageable substance. As is calling someone a right-wing extremist or a left-wing loony. Same old, same old.

Boazy — if you honestly think that promoting minorities is “as racist as it gets”, then the very visible blinkers you wear are blinding you to more extreme examples. You are confusing people arguing with or rejecting your views with being victimised by the left. Be man, not mouse.

Your remarks about Foxy are demonstrably wrong and serve to illustrate once more how prejudice blinds you to reality.

Jane, as for the amount of material advocating Holocaust denialism, I bet you’ve a bucketful. I myself could find many links that suggest man never worked on the moon, Princess Diana was murdered by MI6, and 9/11 was orchestrated by the Bush Administration. Remember, it's good to have an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out.

PC is often a packet of euphemisms for starker language but with the occasional threat of litigation towards those who refrain from its use, it has now grown into a form of social tyranny.

Luckily, in my youth we had never heard of PC, though we were sufficiently civilised to understand the essence of good manners.

Nevertheless, I recall the kindly Afghan cameleer who passed by occasionally giving us a ride on his camel. Due to his unutterable name we addressed him as "Diamond Bum" (how did we know he was probably a devout Muslim!)

Then during the 50's, when my family were the only Australians on the block, we addressed the newcomers with nick-names where the recipients were always good-natured about their new titles, if not thoroughly amused.

There was German Jim, Broody Bareballs, Dotty Dago, Steve the sprogue, Drago the ding, garlic muncher, etc etc.

Dotty Dago and I continue to reminicse over our days at Dingbat Flats, named no doubt due to its predominantly Yugoslav population. Mmmm...there's a thought ..I wonder if they were Catholics, Prottos or Muslims?

Sadly the humour these days is lack lustre, if any. These forums are clogged with the PC bleeding hearts (the thought police), defending the race and cultures of other lands and many wait to pounce on those who happen to have a difference of opinion, those who still practise freedom of speech, which is often deemed racist.

All my good friends, the dagoes, the dings, the sprogues just got on with it, worked hard, were uncomplaining, often living in humpies, assimilated and inter-married and their descendants have achieved highly from the work ethos and good nature of their parents.

And so much attention on our current new (oops) Australians. Even the Vietnamese Triads received less attention than these imaginary "victims" of political in-correctness.

So now I discover that PC is permeating the sensibilities of my own family where recently I was chastised due to my desire to gift my 4 year old grandie with my beloved old golly wog!

"Eh...but.... but...." "Shame, shame on you, Dickie!"

Dear Dickie,

Man's greatest inheritance is the gift of speech.

There are words that are randy, but not dirty. And sacred words that have become soiled with improper use.

Some words stick like burrs and punish at a touch.

And there are others that nurse the ego and heal the heart.

And some words remain forever unspoken, clamped in a throat that aches to let them out. And sometimes they are the most meaningful of all.

I personally feel that if you love your words, If you try to use them well and treat them right, If you respect their function, If you can see their colour and feel their Australian textures, the harsh sun, wide brown land of them. If you understand their constraints, If you know their weakness and are aware of their strengths - then you won't
have to worry about Political Correctness in their usage.

The words that you'll be using will spread smooth as picnic butter.
You won't have to resort to words that jab others hard,words with tight, hurtful little orifices...like 'sneak,' or 'bigot.'
Words with big, round, soft, open vowels - are yours to use any way you damn well please. (smile).

GI Jane said:

"and with the greatest of respect, the expressions left/right are perhaps the greatest of all manifestations of PC, where it is suggested people dont think but simply align/realign themselves [which most do] with whichever "side" is most beneficial to their money making"

LOVE IT! (pity I'm not allowed to put in multiple exclamation marks)

So very true...."

thank you GI Jane and my second worst experience of PC was, as a coincidence, as an enforced GI Joe

it is a mistake to think PC started in 1980 when for sure I can see the same thing back in 2,500 BCE with the mob what dun those great pryamids, as I study Egyptology

for sure in very recent times in 1930s Hitler had PC "pig-tied" as that modern day Texan Bush would say, with his KISS edict

"What good fortune for governments that the people do not think.
Adolf Hitler"

but back to the present, the Nat Service Act was "got" through Parliament in 1964, not based on logic or ethics, but on our then PM Menzies venting his spleen on "The Yellow Peril", thus conscripting 20 year olds such as me to "die to STOP The Yellow Peril"

some Constitutional bloke came from left field [as they say in USA] and said but these blokes dont even have a vote!, so Menzies gave us the vote, but a bit too late given we were already IN Vietnam

the PC upon which Pig Iron Bob relied was that if he screamed loud enough of The Yellow Peril, the PC public would vote "on our behalf to save their arses" and stuff the Constitution, or Human Rights.

but go 40 years down the PC Yellow Brick Road and PC has taken a further turn

Victor Charlie has been "migrated" into Oz society and lives in Cabramatta as a protected Drug Lord [with kicks-back to govt of course]

we conscripts are still known as "baby killers" for shooting at poor old VC, so we get spat on both figuratively and by total lack of any financial compensation

Dear Vanilla....

if my remarks about Foxy are 'demonstrably' wrong.. by all means 'demonstrate' so :)

There is nothing wrong with protecting the rights of minorities. but the RIGHTS which must be protected are the rights which all aussies share..

NOT the right to attack other Australians in the name of 'racism' or 'discrimination' when the reality is 'We want to advance our 'racist' ethnic agenda at the expense of the majority'

This brings me back to the 'human rights' thing... all I say, (and I hardly think it can be described as 'unfair'), is that in a country with a culture and a lsystem of laws,- that culture and legal system must prevail when a person claims a 'human right' which is in conflict with them.

I feel that this, is the most politically CORRECT approach to life.
Agreed ? Pretty much all that I rant about, can be reduced to this one single issue.

I have always thought it a tragedy that Noddy books were taken off library shelves because they contained the word,"golliwog". And likewise "Biggles", who defeated many a vile Hun and their Hunnish plots of world domination. Both were great reads. Killed by PC.RIP.

Boazy: "Pretty much all that I rant about, can be reduced to this one single issue."

Vanilla: "..the greatest danger is intellectual reductionism."

Just about says it all, really.

Boazy: "if my remarks about Foxy are 'demonstrably' wrong.. by all means 'demonstrate' so"

Go to her comment history and look at all the comments *not* directed at you. Each one refutes your statement. Foxy sometimes refuses to direct comments to you because you insult her. To the rest of us, you are patronising without intellectual justification. To Foxy, you often cross over into hostility. If we page Dr Freud, we'll find you are jealous of Foxy. Your posts come across as arrogant and paranoid, and it's hard for you to *connect* with anyone. Whereas Foxy is everyone's favourite Christian - humble, but also intelligent, empathatic and wise. It annoys you when we praise her. So you lash out at her.

Divorce Doctor: The way Vietnam vets were treated in this country (and others) sucks from whoa to go. I'm sorry you had to go through the trauma of war only to find yourself spurned in Australia. It was wrong and unfair in a million ways.

However, you seem to be labelling all herd-thinking as PC. I don't think that definition stands. McCarthyism in the US was a beautiful example of herd-thinking, but didn't lead to affirmative action. Hitler's "banality of evil" effect was certainly evil, but not in the sense that it was trying to give special protection to minorities. I'm going with the Oxford dictionary http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/politicalcorrectness?view=uk or Wikipedia definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correct

If you want to suggest another, go for it. But if you just want to talk about herd thinking, maybe that's another conversation.

Also, not every Vietnamese-Australian is a drug dealer. Check this lot out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnamese_Australian#Notable_Vietnamese_Australians

CJ. Well, yeah, exactly.

These forums sh&*% me off because conversation doesn't happen naturally. I don't have time to wade through all the posts and copy and paste and quote and respond to each comment in turn - hence nothing gets debated properly.
Anyone know of a decent chat room where these things can be debated?

"Jane, as for the amount of material advocating Holocaust denialism, I bet you’ve a bucketful. I myself could find many links that suggest man never worked on the moon, Princess Diana was murdered by MI6, and 9/11 was orchestrated by the Bush Administration. Remember, it's good to have an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out."

Actually - the term 'holocaust denial' IS extreme. The people who want to explore the holocaust (like David Irving - who has written many respected history texts some of you possibly studied at uni) are not seeking to deny it. They are exploring what happened and have uncovered huge discrepancies and are simply asking questions. What seems to be coming out of it is that the holocaust (like many other holocausts at other times) did happen but the numbers killed and the causes of death and camp conditions have been seriously misrepresented.

As for the jewish consipracy thing - it's not all jews, or only jews, but it's a jewish SUPREMACIST mentality and belief system. Look at the jewish supremacist (zionist) control of mass media and hollywood.

Vanilla: "If we page Dr Freud, we'll find you are jealous of Foxy."

Freud was a jew.

Dear Vanilla and CJ,

Thank you again from the bottom of my heart.

I find it extremely difficult arguing with certain people, given their contempt for the tools of honest debate. People who bend
biblical "evidence" until it conforms to their idealogical leanings and agenda. They're not credible as Christians - as they don't practice - "Do unto others..." - and use double standards, for example - one for Christians - another for Muslims.

Most thinking people don't want to legitimize their arguments as worth considering or give them an audience that they don't deserve.

The word "bigot" is often used as a pejorative term against a person who is obstinately devoted to prejudices even when these views are challenged or proven to be false or not universally acceptable.

BD is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, and religions differing from his own.

I've tried reasoning with him in the past - but it is an exercise in futility - and totally pointless. Because I now refuse to enter into a debate with him - it seems to upset him. Well, it would upset me even more - if I was to humour him.

Again, Thank You for your kind words.

"Freud was a jew."

That's right. That's because we're all in it together, Jane. Why do you think I keep engaging you in conversation? How do you know that I'm not a cryongencially frozen Princess Diana who's been unthawed, converted, bat mitzvahed and is now directing blockbusters which contain secret messages to our worldwide sect of demonic followers? Can you prove otherwise?

PS. I'm not saying I *am* descended directly from Jesus. But them I'm not saying I'm *not*, either.

Foxy: I think you're right to ignore Boazy. As he himself says, he only has one point, he just makes it ad nauseum, he's boringly patronising (which wise people never are), he either doesn't read or doesn't understand other people's post (including Ginx's OP here), he avoids posts he can't answer (see the 9/11 thread and my challenge to him about life on Mars), and he certainly has it in for you.

Ginx, dunno where you've gone, but for what it's worth I thought it was an excellent point. I note that, while there's a lot of complaining in general about political correctness on this thread, no one has managed to refute the premise that claims of PC can mask real racism.

Oxford says

• noun the avoidance of terms or behaviour considered to be discriminatory or offensive to certain groups of people.

I think that is far too narrow and, if you will, is PC version of PC to try to elevate current secret wimmins business agendas in order to keep the funding going

let me try

the base meaning is simply that our leaders [normally political ones] dont suffer from foot in mouth, ie toe their own party line whatever it might be - as such that is their day job and there is little harm

BUT the big problem is when the general public also adopts it out of greed and lazyness rather than thinking about "what is right" - and the lie hangs over society like a huge wet tram ticket

example

Hitler was so sure at step 1 he even told the people they did not think

then we see the confession at step 2 with the words [re the millions exterminated]

"if we did not know it was because we did not WANT to know"

I have even put this bit of PC on UTUBE at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewy60MEdJR4

Vanilla;- can't post in the way I want/need to at this moment.

BUT; I face suspension or banning with what I will be posting. Ironically exercising......;-freedom of speech!!

I am horrified at what has been endorsed on this site in the last week in the name of that same F of S. Double standards are now the operating system on OLO.

Gotogo.

Come on....you can do better than "That's right. That's because we're all in it together, Jane. Why do you think I keep engaging you in conversation? How do you know that I'm not a cryongencially frozen Princess Diana who's been unthawed, converted, bat mitzvahed and is now directing blockbusters which contain secret messages to our worldwide sect of demonic followers? Can you prove otherwise?"

Can't you? After all, sarcasm is the lowest form of wit!

Now we're over the suggestions of mental illness (surely not very PC of you) and retaliatory suggestion of a lack of wit (also admittedly probably not PC)...can we return to facts please?

I think the PC movement protects the weak, pathetic and/or charletons from confronting the truth of their position....
Being PC is akin to euphamisms - designed to beat around the bush. A refreshing dose of truth is what's needed in this world - blacks are more violent on average, whites and jews are responsible for most of the great advances in art, literature and engineering etc, orientals are good at mass movements/mass production, jews are money-lenders....oh I can hear the collective outrage right now. WHERE did I say any of these things makes one more important or better than any other on the whole? Acknowledgement of difference does not incur a need to establish on overall heirarchy. Relax!

"Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit"
You know, I've never agreed with that. Look at Churchill, or Groucho Marx, or Ricky Gervais. Brilliantly deployed sarcasm can be hilarious.

As to your central point: "Being PC is akin to euphamisms" - I think if you take the time to read the original post and all the other posts here you'll find that everyone broadly agrees with this. As I pointed out on this thread or the other, the ultimate example for me is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_about_the_word_%22niggardly%22
It's clearly ridiculous, though not so clearly that it never happened.

As to your racial stereotypes, they strike me as simplistic, rather old-fashioned cliches. You can find broad truths in statements like these, but they're very superficial ways of looking at the world. Have you ever travelled? It's hard to stand in front of Ankor Wat and think, "Amazing. But clearly substandard architecture and engineering compared to Tintern Abbey". It's hard to look at the fragments of wall that run through Berlin and think, "Amateurs! Now, the Asians - they *really* construct a mass movement". To find that there are more African Americans on death row in the US and work backwards to conclude that blacks are more violent may work as a syllogism, but it's too simplistic to work as a solution.

So, if you're presenting these statements as some kind of fundamental truth, I'd say that you might find some truth in cliches, but ultimately your statements are intellectually shallow and limit cultural progress.

You seem to think I'm defending political correctness. I'm not at all - I find it laughable. I also think, like Ginx does, some people throw the term PC around as an accusation so as to avoid justifiying their own blinkered views of race or gender or whatever.

If you disagree, then why not give us your evidence for believing "blacks are more violent on average", for example, or "jews are moneylenders", rather than just saying it then labelling anyone PC who disagrees with you?

Dear Vanilla

I'm not here to win popularity.. hence your point about me jealous of foxy is invalid. I absolutely know how my posts are going to impact on some people.

I find it curious that claims my pov has been 'refuted' are oft repeated but I seldom see evidence for it's justification.. I do see lots of personal attacks and one was in Foxy's last post

'You are prejudiced person who is intolerant of others opinions, lifestyles and religions different from your own.'.

I don't see a lot of actual debate in that little ad hominem. Foxy has made assertions in the past and I've given refuting or balancing information, on which 12 people are now on trial and you are hearing of it daily. I hardly think that highlighting the historic and theological reasons for such behavior makes me "prejudiced".

To show me truly prejudiced, you would need to show exactly how the information I provide is wrongly interpreted, or deliberately mis-represented.

In order to do that, you would need to use some basic rules of evidence and by them, show the bias or misrepresentation.

I'm quite careful NOT to use 'hate sites' for material I present.. and if my claims can be backed up by scholars from the religion concerned, then I believe I am rather immune to the allegations of prejudice. but I will happily accept the 'intolerant' tag. "Intolerant of intolerance".

3 major issues are
-the cursing of Jews and Christians based on their core beliefs.(9:30)
-the permissibility of sexual relations with pre-pubescent children (65:4)
-the declaration of war on non Muslims. (9:29)

"no one has managed to refute the premise that claims of PC can mask real racism."

I have refuted that statement in the above. Trying to silence Christians making such points is discrimination of the highest order.
Such attempts to silence is done in the name of PC.
Point made.

"I have refuted that statement in the above. Trying to silence Christians making such points is discrimination of the highest order.
Such attempts to silence is done in the name of PC.
Point made."

A point is not made simply because you say so. Find me one example. An example where someone has attempted to *silence* (not just refute) you, and *not* because they genuinely think you are wrong or prejudiced or because they have a different belief system, but because what you say is not politically correct.

What a great topic here, thanks Ginx. I’m trying to get my head around the whole concept of PC – it is something I’ve given scant regard to because I say what I want, to who I want, how I want, and when I want. It can land me in hot water but oh well- It’s tough to be me sometimes. However, unless I’m relating to a complete doufus, I will show respect and compassion for another's point of view.

I came across a quote from civitas.org.uk that kind of helped me to understand what PC is all about.
“Anthony Browne describes political correctness as a 'heresy of liberalism' (p.2) under which 'a reliance on reason has been replaced with a reliance on the emotional appeal of an argument' (p.6). Adopting certain positions makes the politically correct feel virtuous, even more so when they are preventing the expression of an opinion that conflicts with their own: 'political correctness is the dictatorship of virtue'.”

I look forward to reading your responses to it over my cup of black coffee. Oops! I mean my coffee with no milk!

Hands up everybody who thinks Boazy's NOT prejudiced against Muslims.

And lo! stillness reigned over the land...

BOAZ David
I see you as someone who is trying to protect his country and religion which I can understand. However I am going to say the following to you because I think you need to hear it.
David you really are quite arrogant in your own ways without any intention to be so.
I must be honest I stop reading your posts as soon as I hit the quotes from the bible all the time and I think others do so as well.
The reason for his is because I will decide when and where I wish to read the bible if at all. I don’t like having it thrown down my neck. Oh God I hope you won’t hate me for telling you the way we see it because it’s with the best of intentions to try to reach you.

I notice you have absolutely no idea about the Muslims especially In Australia.
On The Muslims in Australia thread I started to leave some very helpful information for you to give you the tools if you like to grasp what is important to Muslim People in Australians.
You are aware I know that as far as know we are he only people outside the Muslim Community to have worked with them closely for almost six years.
Why don’t you learn about Halal Foods and how all goes down in the Muslim World
Why don’t you want to learn so you can debate with a greater understanding

Wouldn’t it be more power to you if you at least understood how the different contracts with other countries were tied up with people insisting on extreme Islam demands?

My name Is Wendy Lewthwaite and I am The President of pale working in conjunction with RSPCA QLD. I am also owner of State Security and investigations. We are quite happy to supply you with basic knowledge which you DO NEED David but you have to want to be more informed.

In all honesty by your posts I know you do not understand what is going on in Australia re Muslims.

time to opt out of this thread, but in passing I repeat that PC, as with all things in life, can be understood simply by following the money trail, and in the very small corner of PC re "racism" it is the normal haven for lawyers set up by Howard

but when I looked at the legislation I was comforted to see that apart from the title itself "Racial Discrimination" there is no mention of racist or racial, but "because of race"

and if I goto my preferred dictionary from 1950s [as it does not cater for the PC explosion in feminism from 1970s on], race is exampled as "the race of men, of dandies" meaning the Act is perfect to use for such glaring "true racial" discrimination eg wimmin retire at 60 [but increasing] and men at 65 [and was incr under Costello]

oh yeah the dict does not have the words racial or racist, proving they are creatures of their own creation

hope that explains the curse of PC ie that big wet tram ticket that hangs over us of induced public oppinion re men are lowest form in our society, and quite evil it seems

after all, when was the last time you bashed your wife? - the first question put to bloke if he ever ventured into that Howard/Goward Place

DD, the dictionary doesn't have the word gullible in it either. LOL

I do miss the good old days when we called the italians wogs and they called us skippies, usually over a beer at the pub or at a backyard barbie with our sheilas and families.

Gone are the good old days!

Certain terms have always been used in a derogatory manner such as nig.er. A vile term indeed!

When I was a kid, I had a gollywog. I vaguely even remember the biscuits bearing the same name.

It's a crying shame when mates can't get together with their sheilas and express affection for each other in some light bantering and good natured nick names.

I remember one of the schools my daughter went to, they wanted to ban Christmas because they didn't want to offend the muslims who attended the school. I thought I lived in Australia? A nation founded on Christianity and that means being free to celebrate our religious freedoms and beliefs. Another school refused to give in and held the Christmas play regardless, the principal lost her job over that one but the unions would not assist her because they didn't want to be seen as being politically incorrect.

Muslims have not been asked to stop expressing their religious freedom upon arriving in this country, yet we are expected to cater to their whims and sensibilities. I think not! This is PC gone mad!

A few years ago, a muslim cleric was able to say on his radio show that the goal of all muslims in Australia was to take over this country and to kill all of the Christians. He was permitted to say this because he was in a minority group. A Christian who dared speak against this found himself in very hot water. Another sign of PC gone mad.

Either way, God will judge everyone and those who are responsible for PC I believe will be humbled before God and realise the errors of their ways. Perhaps a little to late for those of us still on this earth but kae-sera-sera, whatever will be, will be.

Tammy Jo, I like that definition. I’d add another. I describe a *fear* of political correctness as a 'heresy of conservatism' under which 'a reliance on reason has been replaced with a reliance on the emotional appeal of an argument'. Adopting certain positions make those who use the term PC as an accusation, rather than refuting the criticism leveled at them, feel virtuous — self-styled “truth-tellin’, plain-speakin’ folk”. Even more so when they are preventing the expression of an opinion that conflicts with their own. To cry “political correctness!” is to avoid the real issue. One wonders what they are scared of.

I wonder why persecution fantasies seem so popular on this forum.

Passive. Those are interesting cases, but so vague. Idiotic political correctness certainly exists, but one thing this thread has thrown up is that we don’t have a heap of concrete examples of it. Can you remember the name of the school that wanted to ban Christmas? Or the one the principal that lost her job? Also can you give more details about the Muslim cleric. Who was the Christian involved and how did they get in hot water? If you give me some details to go on I’ll do some investigating — cases like these would have definitely received media attention.

Obviously, it’s ridiculous to ban Christmas. I think primary schools should take advantage of all their students’ cultural backgrounds, and celebrate all the traditions — Christmas, Hanukah, the whole kit and caboodle. More fun for all. Plus, I assume Christians could empathise with how alienating it might be not to allowed to enjoy religious holidays.

So, does anyone have any responses to Ginx’s original question? It was: “has this terminology been seen as a perfect tool to justify cruelty, denial, bigotry, religious and racist intolerance?”

And does anyone else have any examples — just one will do — of political correctness crushing their right to free speech? Other than not being able to eat golliwog biscuits anymore? Anything meaningful at all?

Well, I'm now going to just jump in with the most "politically incorrect" joke. I can't resist. We're getting too serious about
religion and other matters - Here goes:

"I was walking across the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco, when I spotted a man about to jump.

"Please, don't do it," I cried.
"Why shouldn't I?" he asked.
"Well there's so much to live for," I replied.
"Like what?" he asked.
"Are you religious?" I questioned.
"Yes."
"Me too. Are You Christian or Buddhist?"
"Christian," he replied.
"Me too. Episcopalian or Baptist?"
"Baptist."
"Wow. Me too. Are You Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?"
"Baptist Church of God," he replied.
"Me too. Are you Original Baptist Church of God, or Reformed Baptist Church of God?"
"Reformed Baptist Church of God."
"Me too. Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1879,
or Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation 1915?"
"Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation 1915," he said.
"Die heretic scum," I cried, and pushed him off the bridge!

Sorry... as I said, I couldn't resist - it shows not only our "political" differences, but the "political" differences between religions as well. (smile).

"*not* because they genuinely think you are wrong or prejudiced or because they have a different belief system, but because what you say is not politically correct.

"You seem to think I'm defending political correctness. I'm not at all - I find it laughable" (Vanilla)

Ambiguity? What's the consensus here? Are we to sacrifice truth by adhering to PC or do we speak the truth where we risk offending a few?

I see the thread has turned into a "Bark at Boazy" exercise but is he knocking an individual or an ideology?

Does anyone read "Letters to the Editor" in the major media outlets? There are hundreds of writers expressing the same fears and concerns as Boazy and like Boazy, they write under their real names so Boazy's no lone ranger. Some here would describe the writers as racists.

However, how can they be described as racists when Islam does not belong to a specific race? Does this mean we refrain from knocking the Christian religion or any other for that matter?

Can we not debate the Catholic ethos where birth control is not permitted (trashing the environment?) What about the Jehovahs who prefer to see their loved ones die rather than receive a blood transfusion? Is debate here taboo?

The entire West is now fearful of the insidious perceived or real threats of terrorism or Islamic dominance.

Those worthy and peaceful Muslims in Australian communities and our own bleeding hearts are offended by our frankness. I remind them they are not the first group of newcomers who have had to endure our criticisms but their Islamic leaders are the most vocal. Luckily they remain free to express their objections to our opinions and OUR way of life.

Boazy's been posting on OLO for over three years. If his or other posts offend the reader, we in this country remain free to debate the issue, give them a serve or move on.

Supporting each other is good, however, is it not a bit below the belt to gang up to collectively and consistently tear one lone poster to shreds?

Dickie: “Are we to sacrifice truth by adhering to PC or do we speak the truth where we risk offending a few?”
I think we all agree on the latter. Can you find any example of being asked to sacrifice truth by adhering to PC? (I don’t mean when someone disagrees with your truth — I mean when someone wants you to *not* speak what they know to be true because it’s not politically correct.) I keep asking for just one example.

“Does anyone read "Letters to the Editor" in the major media outlets? There are hundreds of writers expressing the same fears and concerns as Boazy... Some here would describe the writers as racists.”
Maybe some of them are racists. (Or do you not believe that racists exist at all?) Either way, I’m sure they’re all genuine in those fears and concerns. And racist or not, the fact that they’re published means that they’re not “silenced” or censored.

Dickie, as far as I”m concerned you can knock any religion or even race you like. I believe in total freedom of speech, even if it’s offensive. I also think there is such a thing as racism, and I believe I am free to call it as I see it, as we all are. I think the problem here is that a lot of people define being criticised as being silenced. Criticism, even abuse, is not silencing. It is not making a debate taboo.

“Those worthy and peaceful Muslims in Australian communities and our own bleeding hearts are offended by our frankness.”
To me, it reads as if you are offended by the frankness of the bleeding hearts and the worthy Muslims.

Dickie, I do appreciate your support of Boazy. Boazy, you irritate the hell out of me, but if I’ve gone over the top in my criticism and it’s offended you then I apologise.

I’m getting a bit obsessive about this topic. But I’m still not convinced that the whole “PC” thing is a total beat up.

Y'know, it's a damn good point in relation to the 'banning of Christmas'.

It's a chestnut that is trawled out all the time to attack this supposedly all encompassing PC encroachment, but I've never heard of the school where this has occurred.

In fact, most of the PC things I've heard tend to be just rumour gathering steam. I think if you attach 'PC' to it and roll your eyes, people will believe just about anything.

I'm not saying some of these overly PC things don't happen. They do. The golliwog biscuits are a fine example.
Passive, as for your mates and good-natured insults - if they're your mates and you're with them, why the hell can't you throw around a good natured epithet?

There's no PC SS roaming the streets. If you're not offending your friends, I don't see what you're really on about there, unless you're doing it to a crowded hall or somebody who doesn't know you.

I agree with Vanilla - from where I'm sitting, overly PC incidents do happen, but it is used far more commonly as a way of evading criticism for views that Australians have collectively rejected as ugly.

1)

First: BOZO this is my only reply to you. The substance of your posts for a so-called Christian are the most intolerant and full of bile that I have ever seen from a 'Christian'. But that has been pointed out to you by SSSSOOO MANY...; with no effect. You still preach the Gospel According To BOZO.

For what it's worth, I'm glad you posted here. I would have felt kind of left out if I did not cop a 'BOZO serve'!

Foxy: Your joke had me in fits!!

Anything else has been posted next door. And frankly I am glad that these two topics have come up. They are long overdue. I actually delivered a paper on the topic "Has Political Correctness subjugated Freedom of Speech" about five years ago!!

I plan to deliver another one: "Political Correctness: Cutting The Suit To Fit The Cloth".

If anything, what has been posted on FOUR threads, particularly by Mr Graham Young who with the greatest of respect, cannot fail to influence others with his views because he is the boss cocky; has concreted my view conveyed in my first post.

Look for yourselves.

Aggressive intolerance and goading has dramatically increased.

I will adjust my earlier phrase accordingly: "Freedom of Speech is my saying and doing what ever I want. Political correctness is your stopping me from doing it".

Has anyone else noticed that F of S has been clearly defined and endorsed. Yet PC and what constitutes PC, is being strongly discussed.

2)

Because PC is being USED. It is being used by the open slather mob to indicate that if one opposes their intolerant and racist views then clearly one is being PC. Which has led to the discussion of what PC actually is.

PC is the measure of the most ludicrous subjugation of things such as niggardly/dark-coloured beauty/yes..and the golliwog thing. PC relates to utter stupidity in the most trivial matters.

But the OS mob saw an opportunity to use it to their advantage;-and they have.

What an irony: FoS!! Really?? Take a look at this forum. The posting system won't/can't allow FoS by its very structure.

I plan to exercise my FoS upstairs, under threat of suspension. THAT is FoS??

It's very selective isn't it; this FoS...?

Ginx said: "I will adjust my earlier phrase accordingly: "Freedom of Speech is my saying and doing what ever I want. Political correctness is your stopping me from doing it".

F of S is not doing what you want because you still have to conform to the law. PC in one culture can be completely different in another culture ie. what is the acceptable or the 'in-mode of thinking' varies.

I wonder what shapes PC thought or fashion? Is it the media or is through the education system? I don't know. Sorry Ginx I am not helping much just providing more questions.

We still possess F of S in that even PC cannot stop you from voicing an opinion it just makes it inconvenient and annoying to argue a point to those who might disagree because of conformity to whatever social acceptable PC norms we have developed at any period in time.

But conversely if someone agrees with something that just happens to also be PC it does not mean that it is wrong...or right. For example if whomever makes the rules on PC decree that (just for example) detractors of global warming or the Apology to the Stolen Generation are not PC it does not mean just because something is PC is necessarily right or wrong.

This is where F of S comes in and why PC cannot be allowed to dictate the validity of an opinion - it has to be argued on its merits with honest scrutiny, research and evidence even if the subject matter may be offensive to some groups.

F of S is a funny thing as it means that everyone has it and can exercise it even if it means disagreeing with another's opinion.

Vanilla, I have a great example of PC crushing one's right to freedom of speech.

During this past Christmas season, Santa Clause was not allowed to say HO! Ho! Ho! Santa was to say Hee! Hee! Hee!

Reason for this? It might insult the ladies of the night over in the good ole U.S.A. as HO is slang for prostitute there.

PC gone totally crazy.

Tammy Jo,

I'll bet my bottom dollar that's apocryphal. But, of course, if you've evidence, I'll believe it. Have you got links to news stories or media? (There would have been a lot of it with that degree of PCness.)

Ginx. Thank god you're back.

TRTL. *Exactly* Thank god someone actually understand Ginx's point.

Third post??

NOT TRUE Tammy Jo. This is what annoys me so much. This is the bullshet trotted out to show 'PC gone mad'.

The idiots tried it;-THAT/THEY is/are PC, but they failed! It was ridiculed,- as it should be and never occurred.

_______________________

Pelican, good points. I cannot agree with your last line though. Restrictions have been threatened on OLO very recently. A complete irony, because they are not directed at some of the most inflammatory posts about Indigenous Australians;- these have been defended. So where Pelican have that been directed; and what has that to do with FoS??

( The auto censor certainly doesn't allow FoS! It objected to one question mark too many. Boy! Am I in trouble!)

Ginx, I am fairly new to OLO and not aware of any restrictions other than when I tried to put an extra quotation mark the system came up with a warning. I only had two quotation marks so it may have been a glitch. I have no idea of the politcis of OLO or the players (although learning quickly methinks :)) and don't much care I will just state an opinion and hopefully back it up with the reasons why.

I think I may have missed your message, I was talking big picture stuff and not thinking about OLO in this context.

Your comment Ginx:
"So where Pelican have that been directed; and what has that to do with FoS??"

I don't understand what you are asking - I think we may be on different tracks. I am also not sure what you mean about "restrictions threatened" - was there a particular incident?

Loved the joke Foxy. Vanilla, I keep things vague to protect the innocent. If you wish to research things, look at the independant radio station that played muslim teachings by the cleric in the punchbowl area. The cleric was even mentioned by a Christian minister who used to be in the liverpool area and had a television show (albeit briefly).

I was informed this cleric was even under careful scrutiny by government agencies for a certain time. I do not know if this is still the case. Probably not considering it happened sometime around 2003. The exact year eludes me, I'm getting old and my memory is fading over issues that I consider to be of little importance to me.

The school was around the same area and no, the media did not get hold of the information because it was suppressesed. Payments were made and people drifted off quietly into the night. Freedom of speech and information appears to be a myth. Besides, it wouldn't have made good news. After all, we can't go offending people now can we?

Vanilla: Oh dear- I am sorry for passing on misinformation. Santa Clause was encouraged to say Ha! Ha! Ha! rather than Ho! Ho! Ho! Enclosed links to news sites that support my claim. Honestly, I could not have even have tried to make that up!

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22761386-2,00.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,311797,00.html

Ginx: Please do not shout and jump down my throat for demonstrating something that is true. Vanilla wanted an example and I gave one. Whether the intention of the directive to Santa failed or not is really not the point- the point is that it even occurred in the first place as a result of PC gone crazy.

Dickie,
My comments to David were NOT meant as a linch mob attack on oh him at all.
David is among our list of a few good men. David is without any doubt someone with more moral fiber than many on this forum IMOP.

He’s not a hypocrite unless of course you include him in general attitude of most church people and Church Leaders with their obtuse arrogant attitude towards their responsibility of Animal Welfare.
Err Sorry David got side tracked. Now lets take a closer look at this man David Boaz shall we all.
Its funny you mention you don’t like a linch mob mentality Dicke because David is coming under the heading a Few Good Men but In this case it was one good man speaking up about that very thing.
David and one or two soul others were the only ones to address the linch mentality when Robert opened the car park to force pale to make everybody use their real names. David was the only one to say Hey fair go guys you are cowards attacking a good group in bogey names.
I didn’t see you speaking out about the unfairness of this dickie despite the fact you know we like yourself work hard to help animals?
Only today I see you commenting to not use real names.

If people Don’t have the moral fiber to support their comments with real names it doesn’t say much. Some people are very dishonest while working for organizations yet denying it. – Not So with David.

David Boaz is worth helping in his cause but we just want him to have full knowledge to debate so people can’t brand him as something he isn’t.
He one a few good men we often talk about. He humor love hope and faith but an enough to speak out about an injustice.
WE just get upset when he doesn’t listen and pops the bible up in our faces all the
And we were honest enough to say so.

Of course after saying that he’s free to do as he wishes.

Passive:

Payments were made? people drifted off quietly into the night?

This is a school banning christmas (allegedly) not the Russian KGB. I can believe that perhaps it missed the attention of the media, but the notion of a conspiracy is a bit far fetched.
As for: "Besides, it wouldn't have made good news. After all, we can't go offending people now can we?"

This is precisely the attitude I think this thread was about discussing.
There appears to be a perception out there that it's this pervasive PC influence that stops things like this from being discussed openly.

Quite frankly, I don't believe that for a second. Most journalists with this story would start a media circus. 'Offending people' be damned.

I think the reason why this PC influence is cited, is because when people have views on a subject that most people reject, they prefer to cite some kind of out of control 'PC' agenda, then admit that most people just find their views pretty ugly.

I'm not having a go at you on this one Passive, I don't know what your views are - but this attitude that things just don't get a guernsey in the media because it's not 'PC' ignores the fact that the media print whatever people will read.
Okay, they may sometimes not print something, but only in extreme circumstances, and if the media back away from printing some controversial story that only appeals to either the lowest common denominator, or bigoted sections of society, then well, that's a damn good thing. They should be commended.

I suspect however, that people who are bigoted or prejudiced against someone or something, prefer to blame things on a PC agenda when their views are exposed for what they are and rejected (passive, I'm not saying you're bigoted, I'm just saying that bigoted people would be happy to blame PC things as well).

Look - at the end of the day, overly PC things do happen. I'm not denying that. But I think it's more commonly used as a smokescreen to evade legitimate criticism.

1)

Pelican; with apologies. There is no edit facility on OLO,I made a mistake in one word!

Your comment Ginx:
"So where Pelican(*have*) HAS that been directed; and what has that to do with FoS??".

Still badly put.

I meant: take a look Pelican at where restrictions have been threatened. What has that to do with FoS?

I refer you to Graham Young's (the owner of this site)- thread (further up) "Sorry Too Limited" on which an inflammatory and racist post was made by a poster who calls himself Wassup, on 20/2. Mr Young has asserted that this is an example of SMS messaging, and should remain on the board. Subsequent disagreements occurred. Mr Young posting on the 21/2 that he would suspend poster/s if squabbling continued.
The racist post (along with another on a thread in Articles- read, and decide for yourself)- then is OK! BUT the squabbling might cause suspension!!

THAT is a classic example of my criticism of those who espouse Freedom of Speech. It is clearly selective. Suspend;- on THOSE stated grounds?? So much for FoS. It depends on whether one is agreed with or not. It has bugger all to do with FoS.

____________________________

TRTL: "Payments were made? people drifted off quietly into the night?"

I noticed that too. In the absence of any corroborating evidence for Passive's claims, I'm treating them as so much bulldust.

Yet another Islamophobic troll, I'm afraid.

Ginx
For what it is worth we are starting to see you with new eyes.
Yup I know that probably small comfort but at least you have the guts to stand up and say what we have been upset about too.
I know the aboriginal lady Taryn would have liked to been able to make response to that racist post but couldn’t.

We wanted to continue with it because of out work with the Aboriginals Minister and elders in QLD but as you know couldn’t.

I know also you are not agreeing to people using their real IDs but surely we could have two sides of the forum don’t you think?

You see this is an example of people thinking they can hide behind bogey names and it’s most unfair.

Oh dear here and I raving on at ou when I actually came in to say you seem to have more moral fiber and common decency than most not to mention guts because I know you don’t want to be banned either.

All I can say is if you’re banned we will stop posting as well in sympathy.
Hilarious I have just now doubt multiplied your chances ten fold;)

TurnRight, I appreciate what you have to say but considering my daughter was at the school, I am aware of what occurred. I agree this isn't russia and there is no KGB. What we have is far worse, a minority holding the reigns of our media. The control of information is power.

I am confused by the rage of People Against Live Exports & Intensive Farming. It is commendable you wish to defend others, a great quality indeed. You express concern about those not using their real names yet you do not use yours. I most certainly don't, so by your definition I am a coward. So be it, you like everyone else is entitled to your opinion.

This however I do not believe is the forum for personal attacks on others. I thought we were discussing political correctness?

I like your organisation and I support you totally, I love animals too....I think they taste great. Really I'm a vegetarian, vegetables go great with steak. Just a bit of joviality to remind people not to take themselves to seriously. Take a page from Foxy's book, tell a joke occassionaly.

VANILLA..... its cool :) I don't hold any animosity .. for my part my real concern is one you alluded to.. about heading towards a particular faith simply because I annoyed you so much.. *shudder* well..I've said something to you in the Total Christ thread.. hopefully it contributes to some healing.

I do try to focus on issues though.. I have called the occasional person a 'moron' but I've also quickly mentioned that I mean it in the technical sense.. as per the dictionary "Lacking in judgement"....

So it's not an insult for insults sake.

If you want a good serving of 'refined mockery' just have a read of Ginxy's post :) BOZO.. BOZO.. BOZO...

Ever since Ginx mentioned she has to be in 'court' I have had all these wild fantasies.. I keep on connecting her with one of the defense team for the 'infamous 12'.. there is a lawyer who has weird dyed hair.. and 'looks' soooo much like Ginx sounds.. good grief.. I'll probably not sleep well 2night :) hmmmm better pat kitty for a while to replace the fantasy.. or is it nightmare? 0_^

Its good that Pelican is coming to grips with OLO politics.. as in how the various posters relate to each other.

Well Vanilla.. you will be pleased to know that every time I see your nick..I'm inwardly warmed.. it so happens that Vanilla slices are one of my favorite delicacies..(pls don't say I'm patronizing)

ON TOPIC... as I see PC it is used to try to limit free speech. It may have been intended to limit 'damaging' free speech, but as with most things that start out good.. it soon morphs from a 'tool' ...to a weapon.

Dear Passive,

Well, I've got another "Politically Incorrect" joke that I can't resist. My mum actually said to me, "But that's blasphemy!" when I told it to her - sorry mum. But I laughed. Anyway, here goes:

Jesus was walking through a small village when he came across a huge
crowd in the centre of which was a young, terrified, woman. "She's committed adultery, and must be punished." was the mob's cry.
Jesus said to them, those famous words, "You who is without sin, throw the first stone." And suddenly from the back of the mob, out comes this little old lady, picks up a stone and hurls it at the young woman hitting her smack in the head, killing her instantly.
And Jesus turns to the old lady and says, "You know mother, sometimes you really p...ss me off!"

Sorry, I thought it was funny!

"I agree this isn't russia and there is no KGB. What we have is far worse, a minority holding the reigns of our media."

With all due respect, this is among the stupidest things I've ever heard. What we have here in Australia is worse?
Have you any idea how lucky we are in Australia? You'd honestly rather take the KGB option?

As far as somebody holding the reins of the media, quite frankly, as I've said in other posts, this is just another 'blame the media' for all our ills option. As I've said in threads such as this, it's just bull. The media is a mirror of society which is out for profit and the lowest common denominator.
There's a more in-depth discussion on it in this thread:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1272&page=0#22672

It's not a conspiracy. Most of the people who believe it is a conspiracy tend to be disgruntled cranks who are annoyed their cause/paranoia isn't held up as the highest priority.

In Australia, unless you're urging violence or harassing minorities, you're free to say whatever you want, provided you're willing to cop criticism for it.

It's people who don't like the criticism who tend to cry that they're victims of PC oppression. Well, tough. Some views cop a lot of criticism. Generally for good reasons.

Boaz can say what he wishes in these threads, but he's got to be willing to cop criticism when people disagree, especially when his posts are so consistent in their critique of Islam and regular Christan preachings.

Passive, I’m afraid I with TRTL and CJ. It’s all a bit le Carre for me. You’re saying the principal organised a Christamas celebration. And was sacked. Her employer would have been the NSW government, so I assume it was the body that suppressed the dismissal in the media. Other people were bribed to keep quiet, presumably again by the government.

If it happened, this was an enormous conspiracy. Gagging the media is incredibly difficult. And *the media* doesn’t exist as one body. Did the state government muzzle both Fairfax and News Ltd? You say you don’t want to speak out about it because innocent people would be implicated? How?

Tammy Jo. Hallelujah. You win the prize.

I note, however, that it didn’t *actually* happen. Once the media got hold of this story and it was pointed out how ridiculous it was, shops and shopping centres insisted on ho ho hoing. So we *still* need to find an example of when political correctness actually silenced someone.

As it happens, I think I’ve found one. David Cameron, leader of the Tories in the UK, called the idea of taking school kids on trips to Auschwitz a “gimmick”. A furore has erupted. But no one appears to be debating if the trip really is a gimmick — it appears that everyone just objects to the words “Auschwitz” and “gimmick” in the same briefing note.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/feb/23/davidcameron.secondworldwar

In Australia, however, we have to be content with *one* story. The forces of PC tried to make Santa say “ha ha ha”. They failed.

Is this really what you guys are so afraid of?

What I’ve learnt from these two threads:
1. Everyone hates political correctness.
2. No one identifies as politically correct. The PC themselves are Snuffleupaguses.
3. While stories and rumors abound, political correctness rarely stifles free speech.
4. Political correctness is usually about trivial rather than serious matters.
5. People love to flatter themselves that they’re brave defenders of the truth is a sea of dark, PC forces, but generally aren’t.
6. Ginx was right.

FOXY'S JOKE...

She shares not just a funny story, but also a reality for some Christians. (GodHatesFags/Pastor Fred Phelps comes to mind)

Fortunately.. I am not one of them :) On the issue of 'denomination' I'm very flexible. Happy to worship and fellowship wherever Christ is named as Lord and Saviour.

I draw the line though at the cults. (JWs Mormons and others)
In our current fellowship, we have 2 rather LARGE former Catholic families. They are so beautiful.. both families and another have just returned from Uganda where they did so many things for orphans.. schools.. you name it they did it.. mostly at personal expense.. (built/relocated a school close to water) none of them could keep a dry eye as they related it.. (nor could we) they said "The children have NOTHING.. but they love God sooooo much"
In the dvd it was so heartwarming to see the whole families getting all grubby, carrying bricks.. making do to get the job done..
None of them will ever be the same again.

MY OWN JOKE... kinda

My little gorgeous grand-daughter is about 11 months old. She has been with us for a few days now. Her communication skills amount to 'nodding' if she things she is supposed to (based on voice inflection) and pushing away things she does not want to be given when she is placed in 'The Hole' (the cot)..

So.. I had a conversation with her which should put a smile on the faces of few of my 'enemies' :)

GrandPa . "Is Grandpa wonderfully handsome" ? *nod nod*

"Hmm..is Grandpa the most intelligent person in the world"? *Nod nod*

"Um.. is grandpa a right wing loony, armchair nazi, rabid dingbat who rants toooo much on OLO" ? *NOD NOD NOD NOD* :)

have a nice evining all

Boazy: "Ever since Ginx mentioned she has to be in 'court' I have had all these wild fantasies.. I keep on connecting her with one of the defense team for the 'infamous 12'.. there is a lawyer who has weird dyed hair.. and 'looks' soooo much like Ginx sounds.. good grief.. I'll probably not sleep well 2night :) hmmmm better pat kitty for a while to replace the fantasy.. "

Boazy is one very weird unit, I reckon. No wonder some people have to remain anonymous (including him).

Hilarious jokes Foxy - I particularly liked the last one :)

Great Joke Foxy
Passive, You know I would like to repond to you remark you left for pale . Firstly you dont know pale very well that clear. They are the ones always putting up jokes They have for years and belly complained so much tinking every joke was about him- god knows Why! they just stopped, Unless posting with Foxy who is fantasic.
The other issue you raised is pale joined as a Institutional member.>
People Against Live Exports
People Against Live Exports is a Institutional member of The National Forum. To visit their website, click here.

You can check this by going into the front and looking under members.
I also know that when I posted as pale Robert complained so to save trouble EVERYBODY stopped posting under pale.
Antje Struthmann was but then everybody started again., They were even allowed to open a car park to complain and discuss how pale posted which i do not understand because REALLY the OLO staff should have just said No this is unreasonable because pale are not breaking any rules by posting as what they joined by.

Love Jokes Passive, I will see what I can find for you. Hi Foxy hi All

Dear Vanilla,

Now to get serious... This is in response to your request for examples of "Political Correctness" gone awry.

Recently, a historic photograph of the New York firefighters raising the American flag over the ruins of the World Trade Center was going to be made into a sculpture as a memorial. But history's revisionists used Political Correctness to dictate that other minority faces replace some of the faces in the historical photograph. Fortunately, in the end that didn't fly, due to the outcry of firefighters and the public.

I remember a few years ago in one of our inner city suburbs there was a City Councillor who was determined to make a name for himself. He led a group of constituents who demanded to have his list of 'offending' books removed from the local library. The books were considered 'immoral' and 'unorthodox' by the Councillor and his group.
Yet the books had not only passed government censorship, been recognized by school boards, book selection committees, and educationalists generally, but had won local and internationally recognized awards.

I remember some of the titles, "Came Back To Show You I could Fly"
(1989) by Robin Klein (won the 'Older Readers' Book of the Year' for 1990) it dealt with the issue of drugs. "After the First Death" (1979)
by Robert Cormier, asked the reader to consider the fragility of the distinction between patriotism and fanaticism... "A Tide is Flowing," by Joan Phipson, relentlessly examined the trauma of a young boy who had the burden of being the only witness at his mother's suicide.

The list went on. Definitely heady issues. Because, they were all -
"Head' issues. But immoral - the library luckily thought not.
They found it immoral to force one's morality standards on others.
It also turned out that none of the group (including the Councillor) had read any of the books. The library stood by its decision. The books were not removed.

I'm sorry if you misinterpreted what was said vanilla. When I said people were paid off, it was never meant to mean they were bribed. I believe the correct terminology is called an out of court settlement.

Regardless of such things, I am at a loss by the venomous comments of some of the members of this forum. Keep the jokes rolling Foxy, yes I'm a Christian but let's face it, God has a sense of humor too, just look at the platypus. That's certainly kept the evolutionists at a loss. That however is not the subject being discussed here.

People are people, we are all made of the same stuff and have the same coloured blood. As Jesus said, "Love your neighbour as you would love yourself".

As for me being an anti muslim type person? I will remember to pass this information on to those friends of mine who are muslims. They would be highly amused as we often joke with one another about each others religions without the fear of being accused of being politically incorrect. Perhaps we are just old school and don't bother ourselves with such trivialities.

Here is a comment to set vanilla off again, do you call yourself vanilla because you would rather be associated with something that is white or a pure flavour? of course you didn't, you chose it because you like vanilla I would guess. I don't know you so I have no right to make assumptions on how/why/what you do. I would appreciate the same courtesy from some of the members of this forum regarding me please.

"I didn’t see you speaking out about the unfairness of this dickie despite the fact you know we like yourself work hard to help animals?" (Pale)

Sorry, Pale. You keep raising this blithering carpark thing but where the hell is it? To this day, I had no idea what it meant. Hennyways, I'm hopeless at directions!

"To me, it reads as if you are offended by the frankness of the bleeding hearts and the worthy Muslims." (Vanilla)

No, Vanilla I'm not offended at all. The point I should have made is that if a poster is quoting passages from the Koran, the Hadith or is relating accurate accounts of violence, perpetrated by those who justify their actions, by their interpretation of the holy books, then those who take umbrage need to justify their reason for taking offence or cease crying "racist!". If the reports are fallacious, then they have every reason to take offence.

"I mean when someone wants you to *not* speak what they know to be true because it’s not politically correct.) I keep asking for just one example." (Vanilla)

I'm not sure if the following example is appropriate - I'm all fogged up with this PC thing:

I once worked full-time for the Catholic clergy, for ten years. I have no doubt they would have realised that I was an atheist but I chose to be PC by not bandying that fact around the parish - though perhaps out of self-interest?

I even went to Mass three times because I found the Catholic hymns quite uplifting - much better than the Anglicans who insist on singing that dreary, mind-numbing "Onward Christian Soldiers!"

During those ten years, despite becoming very good friends with my successive religious employers, we never debated religion once. I remain confident that these fantastic people were well aware of the *truth* - that I was a "heathen" and no doubt would have been greatly relieved that not only they, but their employee also chose to practice a degree of political correctness by not divulging her beliefs or the lack of them.

Foxy
I am sorry but if i dont try to laugh I will cry again .
passive
You came from out of the blue into a forum and supported the most racist comment I have ever seen on the kevin Rudd Sorry Thread.
Then you backed up a email you claim of pure racist hatred
This post said I am sorry you were born black I a sorry Captain Cook didnt kill every last one of you or words to that effect.

Now you claim you are doing Gods work and that you WORK with aboriginal people! and post the comment below >

For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, Jesus Christ that everyone may have eternal life". John 3:16
Posted by Passive, Friday, 22 February 2008 11:35:45 AM
Then you say this>

I deal with many indigenous people on a daily basis and perhaps those I deal with are not upstanding members of the community, this however is not for any person to judge, God will judge us all come the day of Christ's return. Be at peace with one another and love one another, "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, Jesus Christ that everyone may have eternal life". John 3:16
Posted by Passive, Friday, 22 February 2008 11:35:45 AM

I say I am SO upset by the comment I the first place but your claiming to work with my people is just TOO MUCH
Believe me we dont need people like that.
Also I do not believe one word you say for the record.
Also I DO love jokes and I am happy that there ARE nice peoplein the world like Foxy and Ginx and David and many many others. It makes up for sick nasty people.
I am always hapy but I speak my mind . Prefer to giveout love and understanding than feel I must defend but some times you have to.

"Only today I see you commenting to not use real names." (Pale)

Err......where did I say that, Pale? I must be having a "seniors'" moment. Please enlighten me.

Foxy, much as I enjoyed your last joke, it was not un-PC. The opposite in fact. Ridicule and lampooning of Christianity is OK, and has been for decades now.

Ginx, my two bobs worth on PC.

'Correctness' is tied to morality,(accepted societal behaviours). When laws are introduced that do not reflect society norms they need to be enforced by, among other things a PC effort, to be workable. The largely successful enforcement of acceptance of homosexuality on the community following it's decriminalisation is a good example.

Otherwise, there has been a revolution in attitudes to drugs, to marriage, to sexuality, to religion and to freedom of expression in the last 40 years. Those in the vanguard of these changes have had to win over the hearts and minds of us all,(or enough of us); and PC has been one of their tools- along with law making and enforcement and education or re-education.

Blowed if I know why people get so excited by the friction thus caused.

Hi Palimp...

I noted your words

<<Those in the vanguard of these changes have had to win over the hearts and minds of us all,(or enough of us)>>

As for me..I look back over some of the methods used to change opinion, and I don't recall much persuading of hearts, more bludgeoning activism and shock tactics.. shaming..naming.. embarrassing... humiliating...

All with a goal of making those with 'politically incorrect' ideas feel marginalized and intimidated, and feel shame if they spout what used to be the social orthodoxy.

I guess because I've witnessed most of that, I'm so passionate about what to others seem like 'small insignificant' things and trends.
That's the 'social' me speaking.

On 'bile'... Ginx seems to be confused. She appears to regard 'presenting information' however unpalatable to her political/social sensitivities, as 'bile'... but the ironic thing is, she comes back with true bile by attacking people rather than demonstrating the flaws in evidence.

I see the same tactic being used in court where slimey lawyers attack the 'technical method' evidence was collected, rather than the evidence.

Once Ginx gets to the point of being able to say "Your wrong, and here is why" rather than 'You are bile filled scumbag racist pigdog' kind of thing... then the forum will have reached a higher plane :)

back again - couldn't resist the Foxy joke

Jesus said to them, those famous words, "You who is without sin, throw the first stone."

The best read I have had of real POWER PC, ie not by legislation but by that big wet tram ticket that you can't "appeal" against is the Helen Garner book "The First Stone", which I would recommend to all that want to get to the real harm of PC.

Basically it is about an original true feminist Garner finding out and reporting on [and getting abused by] the new breed of "dash for the cash" feminism, with a side dressing of wet tram tickets via the Master totally cleared his name in our respected courts [as Garner says, Howard simply got rid of the court that found for the bloke in the famous "Hairy Legged Lesbian" case] but PC determined that he lost his job and of course became a Geff Kennet Beyond Blue candidate to boot

Palimpsest phrased it pretty well I think. PC is generally a word for the views that the majority have accepted on certain topics.

boaz, you say that those with 'politically incorrect' views on certain things feel marginalised and that's not fair.

Well, frankly, that could be said of things like racism and slavery. It became 'PC' to denounce such things. Would you stand for the old social orthodoxy of enslavement?

It's exactly the same for gay rights. There's no rational reason outside of god bothering or prudishness to stop it.
There's plenty of threads where this has been discussed so I won't go into it, but I'm quite confident, that those opposed to this now, will one day be viewed in the same light as those who vigorously defended racial segregation.

That may fill you with horror boaz. But then again, I'm sure the segregationists felt exactly the same way. They probably even had bible passages they'd interpreted in a manner that supported them.

I'm sure the segregationists also felt as though there was some evil 'PC' onslaught that was thwarting their god given right to be racists.

Well, tough. They had to stew in their own hatred as the rest of the world came to realise what was right. I've no sympathy for them at all. Just like I've no sympathy for many of the very ugly views I've heard in some forums here.

I won't stop people spouting these views, but I'll damn well castigate them for it when they do.
If that makes me 'PC' well, tough. Suck it. Cry 'PC oppression' all you want. Your 'social orthodoxy' is on the way out, and not a moment too soon.

Good Morning Everyone,

I'm back with another "Politically Incorrect" joke. (This is the last one - I promise).

I refer to them as "Politically Incorrect" because it's considered by some as bad taste to make fun of religion. Despite the fact that it's been done for years as Palimphest pointed out. Anyway here goes:

Paddy goes to confession and says to the priest:
"Bless me Father for I have sinned. It's been three weeks since my last Confession and during that time I've committed adultery."
The priest leans closer to the window in the confessional and whispers to Paddy, "Paddy was it with Meg O"Hara that you committed adultery?"
"Father, I can't tell you that," replies Paddy.
The priest sits still for a while, then again asks,
"Was it with Rosie O'Connel that you committed adultery?"
"Father, you know I'm not going to tell you," says Paddy.
Finally, the priest bursts out with,
"Paddy, was it with Brigit O'Connor?"
"Father, why are you asking me these things. I really can't tell you who it was with," says Paddy.
"Allright Paddy," the priest sighs. "Say six Hail Marys and promise never to do it again."
And with that over, Paddy's walking back from the Church when he meets his old friend Seamus.
"Paddy, is it from Church that you're coming?" asks Seamus.
"Yes it is," replies Paddy. "I've just been to Confession."
"How'd you go?" asks Seamus.
"Oh, not bad at all Seamus," replies Paddy.
"I got six Hail Marys - and three good leads!"

(smile).

The old vatican bishop was instructed to descend to the vatican archives to check the state of the documents on which the papal edicts were written.

When he didn't return another bishop was sent to find him.

He discovered the old Bishop holding his head, weeping and wailing profusely and muttering:

"We got it wrong.....it says celebrate,....celebrate,......you hear? C.e.l.e.b.r.a.t.e....&**&%**%!!"

Political Correctness came in with Whitlam's government and was used to oppress any dissent. Today it is still used by people , I call them the "Marilyns" who use the terms 'bigot and racist' in their abuse and reviling of any who are not of their left wing leaning.
For some reason the same people cannot see that the abuse they heap on others is symptomanic of their own mental instability.
Perhaps it would be preferable for them to practice what they preach.

Passive. I’m sorry you’re bruised. Why Taryn is so upset with you eludes me. But as for me, TRTL, CJ etc, our criticisms are part of the rough and tumble of what you want — non-PC culture. Robust debate.

I still find your story incredible — an out-of-court settlement? Sorry, I just can’t see how a school principal sacked for banning Christmas could have eluded the fourth estate. It simply doesn’t ring true. And to compare the Australian media to the KGB is wrong. The KGB *murdered* people — a lot of people, including some of the Western journalists you find so oppressive.

To be honest I’m not sure where you’re going with the vanilla thing. Are you saying that that’s something our mythical PC beast might object to?

Dickie. I fully agree that one shouldn't cry “racist” without proof. I don’t know about your example though. It seems to me that you were choosing to be sensitive rather than PC. They’re not the same thing — real political correctness is so inane that it’s insensitive. It’s a nice story.

Foxy. Excellent example in NYC. However, I note sanity prevailed. Again, reports of PC’s supremacy appear overestimated. Your library example sounds more like a Christian or conservative push. In fact, children’s books that deal with difficult subjects are usually labeled “politically correct” by those who object to them. Why did the councillor find them offensive? Either way I note the push failed.

Divorce Doctor wins the prize. The Ormond College case fits the criteria perfectly.

One case. Fifteen years old.

This topic is important — the overuse and misuse of the term “politically correct” serves no one. So many of you believe political correctness oppresses dissent, yet few want to really scrutinise their own beliefs. Many posters here are in hearty agreement, yet no one appears to care that real examples are so rarely cited.

It’s funny. Ironic. You believe in a make-believe monster is oppressing you, and yet think you have a monopoly on truth. Where is the honesty? Where's the intellectual rigour?

Dear Vanilla,

The Councillor felt that the list of books he and his group presented to the library were not "proper" books for young people to consider.
And therefore should be removed from the library shelves.

He felt for example that a book dealing with drug addiction was -
"inappropriate." However, as I said in my previous post - the books on his list were not the type of books that should have been banned.
Just one example, "Came Back to Show You I Could Fly," by Robin Klein, was a wrenching and unforgettable portrait of a family torn apart by the presence of a child on drugs. The book conveys all the horror and anguish of drug addiction and its effects on all concerned, but while not making it sound easy, the book does end on a hopeful note. As a reviewer pointed out, there is no hysteria, no attempt to probe unduly the whys and wherefores, but rather a patient, understanding acceptance of the pain and frustration, no miracle cure.

So often 'issues' novels only glamourize the issue. This one did not.
Neither did any of the other books on the Councillor's list.
They were all extremely well-written novels designed to make young readers think.

Anyway, the books were not removed from the library shelves as I wrote in my previous post. The heart of this issue was one's definition of education I suppose. The Councillor and his group obviously believed that education is designed to pass on from generation to generation a prescribed, accepted, and very limited body of knowledge. And that everything else is taboo.

Luckily the library's position was different to the Councillor's.
The library did not give in to what they considered "unfair pressure."

Cheers.

Very interesting case Foxy. Kind of thing that makes my blood boil. But it sounds like conservatism rather than political correctness that was the problem there.

My apologies Taryn if you believed I was supporting comments made by wassup(?). I'm guessing that's the one you're referring to. My intention was only to support a person's "right" to speak their opinion whether or not it is accepted or acceptable. Perhaps the words I used were not adequate in explaining my meaning. I am not gifted when it comes to speaking/writing.

Since it seems you have already chosen not to believe anything I have to say, you most assuredly will not believe my apology but so be it, life is full of choices, I choose to forgive and love. I refuse to choose a bitter life of harbouring resentment and anger. You may not choose to have me work with "your" people but to me everyone is the same. I do not define people by the colour of their skin or the religion they choose to follow. Maybe I am just an idealist living in an unrealistic era.

I make my choices every day, choices that let people express their opinions without fear of reprisal, I choose to be politically correct or incorrect as the situation permits. When I am with my friends who I look different to are together, we joke around using political incorrect terms. This is our choice.

God bless you Taryn, God loves you and so do I.

I apologise for using this forum to make personal comments rather than discussing the issue.

Don't forget that while we are able to practice Freedom of Speech we also have laws that prevent/deter racial vilification and the like.

So not pure F or S as the words might imply, but a balance of the rights of speech with human rights. Not always an easy balance and obviously some have concerns about OLO's practice on this issue from comments made above.

I remember when my daughters were at primary school (mid-late 90s) the Principal decided to ban the traditional Easter hat parade and egg hunt for the juniors. There was outrage at the school and I must admit I was not too happy about it at the time and I am an atheist. I know this might sound odd to some, but for the children's sake the egg and hat parade was looked forward to by kids and parents alike.

The reason given was that, given our multicultural society it was thought that Easter being a Christian festival was not reflective of all the families at the school. Our school was a smallish one at about 300 students at the time, and of those, three families were of other faiths (not including the atheists). I should add that the parade was not terribly religious - in that there were no bible readings or other religious rituals (even though Easter itself is obviously an important Christian celebration).

I guess what we have to ask ourselves is was this decision right or wrong? (If one can even talk in terms of right or wrong) Was it PC or was it the Principal's way of saying religion or religious festivals should not be part of public schools given that children from various ethnic backgrounds attend public schools all over Australia.

What do people think?

I've popped in a couple of times today, but decided to have Sunday as...er, Sunday.

But I remembered that I had managed only to send the first part of a post yesterday-(top of page 12), then my post count was up, so no more posts. (Don'tcha just hate it when you can't post WHEN you want?.......!!). I don't want this to go on tomorrow's allowance!

"Ginx: Please do not shout and jump down my throat for demonstrating something that is true. Vanilla wanted an example and I gave one. Whether the intention of the directive to Santa failed or not is really not the point- the point is that it even occurred in the first place as a result of PC gone crazy."
Posted by TammyJo, Saturday, 23 February 2008 5:01:09 PM
_______________________________

TammyJo; first, you will note there are no choices to variegate text tone. The only option is caps, which I (and other posters) use in place of italics or underlining. (WHEN you have to put your hands over your ears-I am shouting!) It is a ludicrous cyber fallacy to take INTERMITTENT caps, and refer to them as shouting!
We have a poster on OLO that uses caps all the time. He is hurting, not shouting. But when someone is REALLY text shouting, by Glod you will know the difference!

Well now; see what I mean about PC being 'used'? Your Ho,Ho example never eventuated, yet you use it as an example as if it did!
Did you not notice that I DID mention that they TRIED PC and failed.
I acknowledge the ATTEMPT, and the fact that what you put forward is an absolutely classic example of TRUE (not the false 'racism protection' PC)-Political Correctness.

This kind of twaddle is being assigned to the wastebasket more and more where it belongs.True PC is as you pointed out, instantly recognizable as such. It is damned easy then to see what the terminology PC is NOW being used for..

Just out of interest, could somebody please provide a verifiable Australian example of where Christmas celebrations have been banned at a school?

Also, where in Australia was any any Santa banned from saying "Ho, Ho, Ho"?

The word "apocryphal" springs to mind. So does "bulldust".

I noticed you posted a few links from the libbers sites, speaking of the others. Well done!

Great Posts.
Hey Guys I think its time we got back to the bone Of this Thread=
Political Correctness=

"Forgive Your Enemies"
The Joke:
Sunday's sermon was "Forgive Your Enemies"

Toward the end of the service the minister asked, "How many of you
have forgiven you enemies?" 80% of the congregation held up their
hands. The minister then repeated his question. All responded this
time except one small elderly lady.

"Mrs. Jones, are you not willing to forgive your enemies?"

"I don't have any," replied Mrs. Jones, smiling sweetly.

"Mrs. Jones, that is very unusual. How old are you?"

"Ninety-Eight," she replied.

"Oh Mrs. Jones, would you please come down in front and tell us
how a person can live ninety-eight years and not have an enemy in the
world?"

The little sweetheart of a lady tottered down the aisle, faced the
congregation and said, "I outlived the bitches".

Off to have a steak and red- goodnight to the A team:)

Ive just learned about another example of Political Correctness.

The recent Annual Mental Health Services Conference of Australia and New Zealand held in Brisbane was addressed by Dr Pat Deegan, who herself suffers from Schizophrenia. Before Dr Deegan spoke, the person introducing Dr Deegan kept talking about, "The Mentally Ill," over and over again.

When Dr Deegan stood up, she addressed the crowd with, "I do not say, I am a schizophrenic. I say I am Pat," she told the applauding delegates. Dr Deegan, from Lawrence, Massachusetts, said people with disabilities were now part of a worldwide movement demanding freedom from discrimination and the stigma of labels. "I think it is reasonable to say, 'people with mental illness' rather than, 'The Mentally Ill,' as if we were a herd of cattle."

An apology was made both to Dr Deegan, and her audience.

Foxy, are you saying you think people who use the term "mentally ill" are being politically correct, or that Dr Deegan is being politically correct by objecting to the term?

I interpret this situation as a woman using language to emphasise that she is a person, rather than just an illness. It seems to me she liberating herself from labels rather than political correctness. I don't see "mentally ill" as a PC term (unlike, for example, any term that includes the word "challenged"), unless you are comparing it with language like "lunatic" and "crazy" - the language that preceded it.

If you're saying Dr Deegan is being PC because she refuses to be known by a common, everyday term, I say good on her. People do become too defined by illness or disability or their physical characteristics in general. I think groups of people that identify with each other for whatever reason - ethnic groups, language groups, people who share like disabilities, etc etc etc - should be able to choose their own moniker. I guess some people think that's PC. I just think it's common good manners.

Either way I'm not sure I agree this is a matter of political correctness.

Sorry Foxy, but these examples of so-called Political Correctness are becoming a little outlandish.

Something I dislike intensely is when unemployed people are referred to as "the unemployed". Something that occurs frequently in discussions in the media. One never hears 'THE pensioners/single-parents/seniors.

However, I have never felt that this terminology or my feelings against it were even remotely connected with PC!

One thing is surely well proven. Political Correctness is indeed a flexible concept is it not?

It comes in very handy for all sorts of things.....

CJMorgan: The link to the newspaper article enclosed FYI. Yes, it was all storm in a teacup at the end of the day but nevertheless, a potential storm was brewing.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22761386-2,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,311797,00.html

Ginx: I hear you loud and clear. I cannot speak for others but it has always been my understanding that capital letters in a word can be construed as shouting. I quote “ Capitals are also tantamount to ‘shouting’ in an online textual scenario and have similar escalatory effects.” (Post Colonial Politics, The Internet and Everyday Life; pg:174) Give me time- I promise I will endeavor to understand the world of netiquette according to Ginx .

Now on to PC. The Santa example I gave (I regret that now) did not seem like ‘twaddle that needed to be assigned to the wastebasket’ to me. Nor did I believe it was ‘bullshet trotted out to show PC gone mad’. I thought it was relevant to the discussion and I provided this as an example to a poster who wanted one. Of course I knew Ha! Ha! never eventuated- I have 11 year old twins- one of whom still believes in the jolly ole guy so I am in the loop with this one. I was not claiming it had eventuated. I was just saying it is an example of PC gone crazy. The fact it occurred is enough to argue that point. Right? You can’t argue with that surely.

In all seriousness, I sincerely do not understand what you are getting at in relation to false PC as opposed to true PC. I thought my L-Plates were quite obvious. I am more than open to learning and have a great thirst for knowledge so please- calmly and politely- enlighten me. It appears I am really off track with this PC stuff and I do want to know more.

Darn, I can’t find my Equality Essentials manual (previously: Political Correctness manual) so that ain’t gonna help.

".........Give me time- I promise I will endeavor to understand the world of netiquette according to Ginx........

........I thought my L-Plates were quite obvious. I am more than open to learning and have a great thirst for knowledge so please- calmly and politely- enlighten me. It appears I am really off track with this PC stuff and I do want to know more........

Darn, I can’t find my Equality Essentials manual (previously: Political Correctness manual) so that ain’t gonna help."

Posted by TammyJo, Sunday, 24 February 2008 11:00:45 PM

MEEEEOOOOWWWWWW!!

On L-plates eh? I think not.

Tell you what. I'll see it my way, and you see it yours. Then we don't need any further post mortems on dear old Santa. Ho,ho..,ho.....

Is that calm and polite enough for you TJ?

Sunday's sermon was "Forgive Your Enemies"
P.A.L.E,
I wonder how many times we're supposed to forgive ? Any reference to that anywhere ?

Actually, I think these examples of 'PC gone mad' such as Christmas being banned (which I still haven't seen an example of in Australia, but never mind that for the time being) are well outside the accepted mainstream opinion.

Therefore, an argument could be mounted that doing something like banning christmas is about as politically INcorrect as you can get.

Just sayin' is all.

Tammy Jo - it was a great example and it moved the discussion forward. I appreciated it. It demonstrated that, as you say, some of these PC debacles are storms in teacups are quite trivial. Nevertheless, someone somewhere did worry about "ho ho ho", so it was absolutely noteworthy.

Relpy-

Individual
Classic name under the circumstances. Is ‘Individual” prepared to post in their real ID/ or prefer to hide behind a false name/?

I see you have misunderstood the Sermon.

No, that was ‘us forgiving the veggies ;)

Still its not Sunday anymore is it :)

ER, don’t you have something better to do?
Why not pop back over to the higher moral ground side of life instead of slumming it here in the general thread.

Still of course you are free to go anywhere as we are. If you do not like being out debated try debating the topic instead of attacking the messenger.
Now the old Id tag comes to mind again. Yup gone are the abusive attacks from 'some libbers. New tags with the same silly comments attacking us from out of the blue. We are well used to this system by now..

Don’t worry so much what a group of people self fund good people are doing to help animals.
Why do you worry about people whose only vise is to work to improve animal welfare unpaid?
Can’t you see live exports have tripled and you still can’t by a cruelty free range ham from Coles or Any other major outlet?

Perhaps its best you return to your talks of rubbishing Aboriginals and Dan Fitzpatrick.
Of course you are correct when screaming about our tax payers’ funds already being waisted over many years

BUT whose fault was that? We can not blame the Aboriginal 'people' living in the bush for allowing their leaders to rip them off.
We can blame the Australian Government and ourselves for not caring enough to keep a much closer eye on these funds and Aboriginal people in general.
We wish the Good Dr Dan Fitzpatrick the best of British Luck trying to reach you.

Umm, I wonder it that is PC. One never knows these days. Still it’s not something we tend to give much attention to. We prefer to concentrate on the suffering of millions of Australian animals and present viable alternatives for jobs in the bush and training.

Dear Vanilla,

Emergent Political Correctness is the language of groups who have been endeavouring to achieve the full promise of citizenship. The groups like - women, gays, blacks, and lately physically and mentally handicapped and the mentally ill. All of these groups have been demanding that they be treated with respect and as part of this have asked that we change our language behaviour so as to recognize their humanity. So terms such as, sheilas, poofs, nig..ers, The mentally ill, were asked to be replaced with more acceptable language.

And that was the point Dr Deegan was making.

Cheers.

Dear PALE&IF,

Loved your joke, "Forgive your enemies."

It's now doing the rounds among my friends.

Thanks.

I'm assuming for the moment that this is not a troll, pelican. Time will tell whether I am being naive.

>>the Principal decided to ban the traditional Easter hat parade and egg hunt for the juniors. There was outrage at the school... [t]he reason given was that, given our multicultural society it was thought that Easter being a Christian festival was not reflective of all the families at the school... the parade was not terribly religious - in that there were no bible readings or other religious rituals... I guess what we have to ask ourselves is was this decision right or wrong? Was it PC or was it the Principal's way of saying religion or religious festivals should not be part of public schools given that children from various ethnic backgrounds attend public schools all over Australia. What do people think?<<

Taking up school time for a hat parade and an egg hunt seems a pretty stupid idea to me. I have absolutely no problem with the principal bringing a halt to such trivia. The termination of such a pointless and blatantly commercial exercise as making hats and eating chocolate would seem signally non-religious in intent.

"Religious grounds" sound more like an excuse than a reason. If the parents had been "outraged" because their expressed community religious views were not being catered for, it might be a tougher one to determine. But "...the parade was not terribly religious". Did it in fact have any religious connotation at all? It certainly doesn't sound like it from the description.

It's much of a muchness with Valentines' Day, really, just replace easter bonnets with roses. I doubt if there would be a story if a Principal came down against any ceremonies in support of St Valentine.

(And in case anyone doubts that such events exist, I happen to know that a school in leafy Sydney north-shore suburbia actually holds a "Valentine's Day assembly")

“sheilas, poofs, nig..ers, The mentally ill”? As they used to say on Sesame Street, one of these things is not like the other one!

Sorry Foxy, but I strongly dispute your analysis. We cannot lump language like “sheilas” and “poofs” in with “the mentally ill”. Those who’d label women and gays as the former are more likely to name the latter “loonies” or “nutbags” or whatever. If anything, the “mentally ill” might itself be considered a PC term by those who call a woman a sheila. I think the way you’ve grouped language here: “women, gays, blacks, and lately physically and mentally handicapped and the mentally ill” — is perfectly acceptable nomenclature to most. So why is it only the mentally ill that can also be found in the politically incorrect group that includes “poofs” and “nig-ers”?

I disagree with your interpretation of Dr Deegan’s point. As I said, I think she was trying to say that we should talk about “*people* with mental illness” rather than defining the people by the illness. She’s not offended by the terminology, but by the emphasis, by its placement in a sentence. She was trying to say the person came first, while the illness or disability or ethnic group or sexual orientation comes second.

Looking at her other work, I see that she’s perfectly happy to use terms like “mental health”, “mentally ill” etc in other contexts. If you think she objects to terminology rather than syntax, why doesn’t she reject the terminology? And can you find any other examples of people finding “mentally ill” politically incorrect? And with what would you replace it?

I note you’ve given me a little lecture on what PC language actually is! Have I really come across as that thick? I am entirely depressed by this. I believe this is important and have tried over this thread to distinguish the real meaning of political correctness, rooted in Ivy League academia, from the entirely fallacious accusation that PC culture silences real dissent. Why do you not think I understand it?

Dear Vanilla.. I must commend your superlative approach to disagreement with Foxy.. all you need to do now is translate that same approach into your responses to... 'me' :)

"Promoting Minorities" to address what you raised in your previous post. Is 'racist' when the promotion is at the expense of other non them groups. As long as that 'expense' is of course not itself based on any unjust structure deliberately put in place to discriminate against such minorities.

We should never be promoting 'racial groups'.. no not ever.. we should be promoting "Justice" for all. I hear Aunti Pauline in the background here. ."All Australians should be treated equally"..yep..I cannot for the life of me find even a hint of racism or problem with that.

I hope I have clarified my meaning there.

I'm still interested in your evaluation of various bits of evidence I have presented from time to time (some might say 'most' of the time)..
I've made a number of claims.. about Islam etc.. and I am struggling to find any serious response.. all I've had mostly is simple "abuse"

Hoping to hear from you about that when ur able.

cheers

Pericles

I don't know what a troll is but I am assuming you are asking whether I am on the level?

Firstly, I don't make things up for the purpose of debate and secondly I don't know why anyone would think this impossible given this thread is about PC.

As I said, the running of the egg hunt and hat parade was not conducted in an overtly religious fashion (only in that Easter is obviously a Christian celebration). There were some Christian families who argued that Australia is predominantly Christian and felt that we (the 'royal we') are always giving in to the PC brigade. Even other parents (agnostic or atheists) were a bit put out because lets face it Easter is a tradition.

I should add that this decision by the Principal was not because of any feedback from those families of other faiths. The parents were upset because they perceived that the Principal was trying to fit in with growing PC culture and wanted to be seen as someone who was up with the current thinking by her peers.

I was interested in what others thought given the theme of these posts and whether this really is PC or just good policy given our multicultural society. Personally I was a bit put out at the time, I guess like anyone I am a victim of tradition and find change hard in some respects but we have to remember this was a public school not a religous based school.

You might think making hats is pointless but the children didn't :). The school also conducted a parade during bookweek where children make their own costumes based on a character from a book in an effort to promote reading.

Getting back to what I think Ginx's point was: is this an example of PC run amok or is PC being used to promote one point of view? Was the decision fair given our changing times?

Individual, in response to your question, how many times should a person be forgiven?

Look at Matthew 18:21-22
"Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?"
"Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven."

Be blessed.

Dear Pelican,

The Easter egg hunt should have gone ahead (in my opinion).

In Dec. 2001, In Kensington, Md. in the US an annual firefigthers Santa Claus festivity to light the Christmas tree was objected to by two families. The City Council, in the name of Political Correctness, voted to ban Santa from the parade. Fortunately, due to citizen outcry, the decision was reversed in the end and many people protested by dressing up as Santa.

Logically and respectfully, how can on person's benign icon be objectionable to the point of banishment? Offer to add other people's icons. Make it a broader celebration. Would that have made it the perfectly "correct" American way?

Dear Vanilla,

Sometimes, it takes me a while to focus on the issue at hand, and I
tend to "waffle" on a bit. But I wasn't trying to imply anything as far as you're concerned. Your arguments concerning Dr Deegan's case that I cited earlier do make sense. Thanks for your input.

Take Care.

Foxy. I'm sorry. I got too involved and a bit hysterical. My sincere apologies

Dear Vanilla,

As far as I'm concerned - you are one of the best 'posters' on this Forum. Your arguments are always well argued and valid.
And it's always interesting to read what you have to say.

So there!

The reason I wondered whether your post was a troll, Pelican, was the suggestion that the religious aspects of Easter were possible causes of the cancellation. Odd, because neither an egg hunt nor a bonnet parade contains any religious content.

It is more than a touch bizarre to say "I think we should remove religious connotations from this festival by banning two non-religious aspects of it".

If the pupils had been re-enacting the stations of the cross, it could perhaps have been justifiable on these grounds.

Unpopular. But at least consistent.

But chocolate and bonnets? Good grief!

Foxy and Pericles, thanks for your input. Yes we all thought it a bit bizarre at the time but you have to understand the nature of this particular Principal. I don't mean to denigrate her because her heart was often in the right place if not a bit misdirected at times.

The school was quite a good school and there were often many other non-Australian cultural activities such as Indian dancing, Indonesian cooking and talks from people who had worked in Aid organisations overseas. So the kids were exposed to many different experiences as part of their SOSE classes. It was just one experience I have had with PC.

Mind you working in the public service on the odd contract here and there can have its PC moments too :).

Just on the lighter side ...

I've found a list of "Politically Correct" words that I thought everyone on this thread may enjoy:

Lazy - Motivationally deficient.

Fail - Achieve a deficiency.

Dishonest - Ethically disoriented.

Bald - Follicularly challenged.

Body Odour - Nondiscretionary fragrance.

Ugly - Cosmetically different.

Unemployed - Involuntarily leisured.

Dead - Living impaired.

Drunk - Chemically inconvenienced.

Ignorant - Knowledge-based non-possessor.

That's all for now.

I need to clarify a couple of things:- given that my directness is a plainly obvious, I do not shy away from my previous comments;....UNLESS they are misleading.

"One thing is surely well proven. Political Correctness is indeed a flexible concept is it not?

It comes in very handy for all sorts of things....."
Posted by Ginx, Sunday, 24 February 2008 10:34:05 PM
_________

For Foxy:-This was NOT directed at your comment/s, you have my word on it. It referred to the concept of PC being shaped like playdough to serve the purpose of the individual who applies it. As the thread played out, I felt that that was well proven, and that is when I stated it. I still feel so. It was NOT directed at ANY individual comment.
___________________________________

"This kind of twaddle is being assigned to the wastebasket.......
Posted by Ginx, Sunday, 24 February 2008 7:52:05 PM

For TammyJo:-"I was referring to the Ho ho thing; NOT your comment.Irrespective of what we discussed, 'twaddle' referred to the daft criticism of Santa saying Ho ho ho!!. Again;- you have my word on it.(I notice from another older thread that you and I have a similar history in some matters. It can be very tough; I wish you well).

_________________________________________________________

Two out of three ain't bad...........?

"Once Ginx gets to the point of being able to say "Your wrong, and here is why" rather than 'You are bile filled scumbag racist pigdog' kind of thing... then the forum will have reached a higher plane"
Posted by BOZO_David, Sunday, 24 February 2008 6:08:55 AM

For BOZO:- Your mind is a cesspit!! 'SCUMBAG RACIST PIGDOG' did not come from me! It came straight out of that festering swamp of a mind of yours. The 'kind of thing' proviso doesn't square it. This type of viciousness comes straight from the BOZO cesspit!

A TRULY Christian friend of mine read some of your posts; she had to stop; she was horrified and quite upset, and insisted that you were NOT a Christian. Either you are not, or Christianity is a profoundly evil influence??

Dear Ginx,

Look at what you've done ... It's great.

You must be getting close to setting a record for this Forum - have a look at how many pages on this thread of yours - and it's still going strong with no sign of stopping.

Ginx, you've really started something here - wow!

Good stuff!

This is piffling Foxy! Some threads have gone to over two hundred or more posts!

Agree or differ, it is certainly an interesting journey on this thread!

Cheers,- time for cocoa!

Ginx- We gotta love ya! You are clearly passionate about this topic and you certainly keep things interesting! Thank you for your explanation of your comment in response to mine. All is cool-

Here's is my thought on this topic: If we all knew the rules about PC and the goal posts would stop moving then PC would not be such an issue. But until that happens my highly evolved intellect and sought after considered opinion (at least in my own mind) is:

Political Correctness Sucks

Another PC saying: Fail= Deferred Success. (Thought Foxy would like another one.)

Hi Ginx...well I call them as I see em....

You are just projecting by describing my mind as some kind of cesspit.. I absolutely defend my use of 'kinda thing' because it does encompass the emotion and tone of pretty much all your posts where I'm mentioned.

I still return to the most important part of my post "When Ginx (and others) actually speak in response to evidence.. and assess it on its merits,
-"You are wrong, because the plain implication of that (verse, quote, statement) is different from how you understand it".

or
-"Here is contradictory evidence.. supporting a different conclusion"

That is called 'discussion'... but until this thread, I've not seen 'discussion' from you.. just a tirade of abuse. (for which you have been banned in the past)

You remind me this time of the car salesman.. having a difficult time closing the sale.. so he goes and gets his 'sincere' friend.. to make it 2 on 1 of the hapless possible purchaser

Quoting your 'true' Christian friend is meaningless.. tell him/her to come here and speak for themselves.. if they wish to take issue with the ISSUES I raise..they are more than welcome.

Now.."that" would be very politically correct :)

Boazy: "I absolutely defend my use of 'kinda thing' because it does encompass the emotion and tone of pretty much all your posts where I'm mentioned"

There he goes again, justifying his annoying habit of attributing to others things they didn't say. Of course this general principle underlies much of Boazy's tendency to mendacity, things are made up to "encompass the emotion and tone" of events. While this might be standard operating procedure for those whose lives are guided by fairy tales, it fails miserably when exposed to the light of reason.

Thus, when Boaz's imagination is excited he comes out with false or distorted quotations that support whatever his current tirade is about. It is, of course, the same process that sustains the credulity required for a person to continually proclaim their own "god delusion" while decrying those of others.

For example, Boazy currently claims in another thread { http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7040#107148 )that an OLO author "holds Christians up to serious public contempt" and should be "SUED" for "religious vilification". While this could be an attempt at wit, it involves a deliberate misrepresentation of what the author had to say.

Further, it's another example of the way in which "PC" is now being deployed by the lunar right, which includes religious extremists of various persuasions including Christianity. While I sometimes enjoy the sophistry involved, there is always the danger that somebody might take these nutters seriously :)

Boazy,

You may not like CJ (I love writing CJ - makes me feel like a sundry character in the West Wing), but he speaks sense. You addressed a post to me specifically above, and I've felt rude not answering it, but the truth is I don't think our debates constitute a useful way to spend my time. We fundamentally disagree on too much, and while that might make for useful discussion in other situations, your tone is too patronising to make it worth my while. (Compared to the zillion other things I'm supposed to be doing.)

One of your main points is that bad things are "doctrinally permissible" in Islam but not Christianity. I seriously could not care less. Both systems are equally untrue. Your endless youtube clips of Islamic nutters just proves what I already knew - fundies are nutters. I don't care what club they barrack for.

As to your specific question, I'm happy to answer it. I think to say that Australia's rather pathetic attempts at affirmative action (you should go to the US) are overestimated. To call them "racist" may be technically true but it so victim-y and mean-spririted that I have little time for it.

I understand you're having a hard time getting anyone to take your arguments about Islam seriously, but unfortunately I am one of the people who is going to disappoint you.

You are such a tiresome fellow. No amount of waffling on in your relentless but oh so similar posts will make one iota of difference.

It quacks like a duck BOZO; it's as simple as that.

"That is called 'discussion'... but until this thread, I've not seen 'discussion' from you.. just a tirade of abuse. (for which you have been banned in the past)".

As I said; tiresome. Please get your facts correct. A poster refers to the Left being responsible for the mass-killings of Pol Pot. I call him an unintelligent little twerp...; which he was.
I was SUSPENDED for 24hrs. Because, as we all know, being accused of responsibility for mass killings is nothing in comparison to being called an unintelligent little twerp.

You give a mass of information and opinion, without a sceric of knowledge. I take it you have never been suspended.

Frankly, I find that entirely consistent here, I really do.

David

Do I try again. Will you listen. If you want to educate people( and I am not trying to patrinise you) you must be in a position to speak about Australian issues now.

If really serious I will invite you to the next meeting to meet with Leaders {as a spectator only.(because these are animal welfare issues.


You know our email address and the phone number is on the web page.

I am not trying to come across as a smart arse either because I certainly dont have all the answers.
However I will warn you now there are two types of Muslims just like there are two types of Chistians and if we dont support- really support the good guys then yes we will be heading for trouble IMOP

Now there is a great deal I am not prepaired to say on OLO yet if ever.

What I will say and what I am saying is David email us or call us if your "serious about wanting be informed of todays issues" and be involved in building the bridges you are welcome to email us.
If you not interested then I would have to start to be swayed by the many posts of the others who think you are just spreading hatred.
Its ok to hate if there is reason to and In dont care what the bible says so please dont start.
Sometimes we have to hate. Some times we must fight too.- But shouldnt we do all we can to understand the issues and educate ourselves first to try to resolve them
You can be part of that or at least come away knowing something of whats is and isnt going on in todays Mosques.
That is up to you,.
I hope I dont sound hard or cocky because this is a most sincere post David Boaz.

There is either
a) something wrong with my ancient computer or
b) ongoing problems with internet connections here

because whenever I try to get onto a thread that goes past about 4 pages the connection timed out message comes up. This is the first time I have been able to get through most of the pages on this thread. Albeit with one or two missing.

What has struck me about both this and the other on Freedom of Speech is how lightly people take the concept.

If all those who fought, died, were tortured, jailed and killed fighting for our right to freedom of speech knew that we would take that as carte blanche to say "You are a retard" to a total stranger on an internet thread I reckon they would would feel somewhat betrayed. The original idea, I have always thought, was not to say "Marie Antoinette has fat thighs" but "Children are dying because of unfair taxation by the monarchy".

As for PC? Well it has always seemed to me that came about because too many people's mums didn't tell them it wasn't nice to say nasty things to other people, once they assumed they had the right to comment on Marie A's fat thighs.

My experience has been thus far that the stories of "PC gone mad" are apocryphal: they seem always to emanate from unconfirmed sources in tabloid media or from the kind of person who thinks M.A's thighs were the most important aspect about her.

Personally, I don't think ANYTHING gives us the right to slag other people off.

Glad you made it Romany.

The technicalities of computers whizz over my head, so I can't advise!

Glad to see you too Romany. I was taking trying to take this topic seriously, until I started to feel like a board hog, and backed off a bit.

"Personally, I don't think ANYTHING gives us the right to slag other people off."

Really? You don't think the right to free speech gives us the right to slag people off? The problem with free speech is you can't just employ it when you're making meaningful criticisms of others - it goes for everything, even Marie Antoinette's fat thighs. (Which were ridiculed at the time (or her greed, anyway), which did in part mobilise the people, which did in part lead to the overthrow of Louis XIV.)

If we have exceptions to free speech to enforce politeness, then where do we draw those lines?

Personally, I don't think anyone has the right *not* to be offended. Robust debate helps filter ideas through culture. If people are so weak that we feel they need to be protected from the curses of others, then as a culture we need to back them, strengthen them, not silence those who curse. Whose curses may be legitimate and lived to them, and who may desperately want to express them.

Unfortunately, those who died for our right to say what we like have been rewarded with a culture that says what it likes - as long as it's about Brittney Spears. We do not defend their memory by silencing others. We defend it by working toward a more free culture, we seek to remind people they can be free from trivia as well as free to indulge in it.

Thoughts?

Sorry, I can't seem to get my head around "heady" issues today.

The best I can come up with at the moment - is another example of "Political Correctness." I found this cartoon in my files...

A 'creature from the black lagoon'(reptilian monster) is sitting at a dinner table in the swamp, with his lady love drinking champagne. He says to her:

"Well, actually, Doreen, I rather resent being called a 'swamp thing."
I prefer the term "wetlands-challenged mutant."

Perhaps its best you return to your talks of rubbishing Aboriginals and Dan Fitzpatrick.
P.A.L.E.
I only just got back from a community where Next G is not working so I only just read your post.
What on earth are you on about "rubbishing aboriginals & dan Fitzpatrick" ?
Give me just one example where I have rubbished anyone apart from those bureaucrats who deserve to be rubbished because that's all they are. Everything & I mean everything I state here is based on my personal experiences so I am at a loss where I went wrong. Or could it be that fact & truth are not acceptable to you. I don't want to start a rant here but as I said I'm at a loss at your post.

Vanilla - I had a response for you that was incisive, brilliant and would have argued you into an admiring silence. But the "Timed Out" poster came up again and wiped it, I'm totally incapable of being brilliant, incisive etc. etc. twice in a row, so you'll have to make do with this.

And I still stick my idea that we don't have the right gratuitously to go around hurting other peoples feelings for no better reason than it makes us feel better. I believe all rights and freedoms come with a caveat: they carry with them responsibilities. We have sexual freedom, for example - but we have the responsibility to ensure we don't use it to spread HIV, to bring unwanted children into the world, to emotionally blackmail others.

The right to free speech is the right to disagree, object and debate ideas that differ from our own. It is not, or so I believe, the right to rubbish people who have ideas that differ from our own.

I don't think it strengthens a person to cop a rubbishing - not because of the ideas/ideals they hold but because of the very person they are. Or their spouse or children are. I think that the strongest societies are those which strengthen through encouragement, teach respect for those who differ from the norm in thought and in lifestyle, and are unafraid to speak out.

And hey, maybe M.A's thighs were genetic?

Well put Romany!!

You know what?

I don't think that you two are disagreeing??

I think it is not the right way, instead to attack BOAZ_David's ideas to attack him. For me BOAZ_David is a respectable person, honest and good fighter for his ideas. We can agree or disagree with him, I disagree, but it is not the best way we behave to him. Over all we must respect the right for any person to express his/her ideas and protect his/her rights to express his/her ideas. When we do not use the right way for any person, in really we try to block him/her to express his/her ideas.
Let's control our behavior and show more respect and understanding to BOAZ_David, he deserve it.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

I'm not sure what that has to do with political correctness Antonios?

However, might I suggest that you go to BOZO's post history and spend some time there. You will find post after post AFTER POST, that denigrates and vilifies others.

It is all very well to talk about attitudes TOWARD this man;- take a look at his consistent attitude to others;- and THAT is from someone who purports to be a Christian!!

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Christianity a belief system that promotes 'goodwill to all men'?

Take a look and judge for yourself. You cannot seriously believe that this man is criticized for absolutely no reason? It is unfortunate that you comment on the reaction to this, and not the cause.

VERY unfortunate. He never misses an opportunity to attack, and you've handed him an opportunity to take the moral high ground yet again.

Romany,

Don't panic, you nearly always stun me into an admiring silence. On my initial post to you I was going to write "please don't take advantage of me just cause you're brainier than I am", but thought it might have seemed a little pathetic.

Having said that, I still don't agree. The sticking point for me is when things become law. The ethical landscape you paint - one where we only attack on issues and play fair and square - is absolutely a value system I subscribe to. (Or try to. Boazy and HRS often threaten my ethical equilibrium.) But it's too restrictive for me to want it enshrined in law.

There's also the sticky issue of defining a "rubbishing" as apposed to a rational argument contra. I want to say "God is bunkum, and Christianity and Islam are each as idiotic as the other." Someone who believes their silly book somehow constitutes historical truths could read my statement as a rubbishing, others wouldn't. This is why I believe racial vilification laws blow.

This is also why Amnesty International and PEN exist. Because some countries have sought to draw lines around what can and cannot be said.

I agree with your about our responsibilities, but only some can be enshrined in law. It is illegal to knowingly spread HIV, but it is not illegal, and nor should it be, to emotionally blackmail others. Immoral, but not illegal

1. When I had exams for Greek Universities, a Greek priest took my forms and signed them. He blocked me from Greek Universities. During junta in Greece, a special unit of Greek Church hunts Greek lefts in Universities and destroyed their life.
2. I was in Germany, after the collapse of Greek junta, the Greek Socialist Party (PASOK) was trying to establish his local Organizations. One time we went to Auxburg to create a local organization. One man asked us about the religious. I said we are atheists!! We created many local organizations every where but not in the Auxburg. If we want to pass our ideas in main issues as democracy, social justice, peace, etc then we must be very careful with religious, except if we discuss to discuss.
3.I had a problem in Germany and the Greek Church offered to help me. I did not accept their help and of cause I expelled from Germany.
I was enough hard with religious in the past. Now if I speak for religious I do it to protect the human rights or to promote the cooperation between people from different religious.
I do not think our discussion is very productive. We can not change David but with a better way we can soften him. I found last weeks he try to minimize the cost on Muslims and he attacked the Islam.
Antonios Symeonakis
Asdelaide

"I do not think our discussion is very productive. We can not change David but with a better way we can soften him. I found last weeks he try to minimize the cost on Muslims and he attacked the Islam."
Antonios Symeonakis
Asdelaide

Antonios;-with my post, this thread has now reached 140 posts. I consider that VERY productive, whether I agree with some of those posts or not!

(As someone has already mentioned, you have clearly identified yourself, and it was an easy matter to get your location and phone no. Have you had an interstate phone call by any chance??).

I am at a complete loss to understand why you have suddenly become preoccupied with defending someone who I doubt could be put down with a scud missile! Your new chum has been taking care of himself and his own views:-AND strongly denigrating other views with extraordinary condescension, or outright invective for longer than you and I have been on OLO...added together!

God knows....??, the fellow is never, but NEVER daunted from his preaching.

The new found friendship is up to you, but please don't seek to dismiss 139 posts because of it.

___________________________________________

To more important matters.

It's interesting to see that the "Freedom of Speech" thread has been largely an exercise in the defence of FoS.

This thread has evolved as a discussion on what 'Political Correctness' actually is.

So;-FoS is defended. PC is debated.

If that doesn't send a clear message, I don't know what does!

FOS vs PC vs SF (stating fact) vs DF (denying fact) all hinge on the ability/inability of people to actually comprehend or choosing not to accept fact. No matter how correct & accurate a statement is, if it puts somebody on the spot it will always be denied & criticized. Only a few posts back I was accused of rubbishing for simply stating my personal experiences by someone who was nowhere to be seen when I had those experiences. My accuser may believe to be PC whilst at the same time rather opportunistically used FOS to malign my character. I put that down simply to indoctrinated ignorance.
In my opinion PC is as paradox as pleading guilty to something you didn't actually do in order to lessen the sentence whilst swearing "to speak the truth and nothing but the truth".

Actually Ginx, I think it is rather sweet that Boaz has found a new friend.

>>I am at a complete loss to understand why you have suddenly become preoccupied with defending someone who I doubt could be put down with a scud missile!<<

It won't last very long, though. Antonios is the antithesis of everything that Boaz stands for. He is an active unionist, for one thing, and supports broad immigration policies for another.

http://www.alphastandard.com.au/planetearth/

His worst sin in Boaz's eyes, I suspect, is that he dared publish in his native tongue, in an Australian forum! Shock horror!

http://www.rightsatwork.com.au/rightswatch/yoursay_comments?root=414

Scroll down a bit to the entry of 26th Feb 2008.

>>My text is in Greek and related with the rights of temporary migrant workers, new slavery. My english is not enough good you can translate it if you think that non aglosaxon Australian workers must have a say. Independ in what you think about us, we have our say, especial on the internet<<

Bearing in mind how Boaz is so passionately opposed to people flaunting their ethnic roots - even by supporting the wrong football team - this is like a red rag to a bull.

No, I predict a short romance, followed inevitably by disillusionment, disappointment and a sense of bitter betrayal.

And as with every doomed love affair, he won't thank you for warning him.

Ginx
1. I do not think we can change David's mind. Do you think?
2. While we can not change David's mind we can make him stronger or ..even a religious personality with political influence in Australia. See what happened in America. Do you want to do the same thing in Australia? You can do it. It is wrong to believe that you weaken David with this way . NO, YOU MAKE HIM STRONGER. Try to find an other, smarter way to do your job, not this way. I do not know what is your main goal, mine is the democracy, human rights, social justice, peace etc. More you hit a religious, stronger you make it. If really your goal is to hit the religious, do it indirectly.
There is a question who seems to be the winer and who really benefit from it. The way you run all against David, is the best way to make him a leader. If 20% of Australian population is not religious the rest 80% are religious and some of them very religious. They feel high sympathy for David, who (they think) attacked by atheists.
When I say not very productive I do not mean from participation but from the results. Your tools are not very good for religious people.
Do not mix the religious with politics.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Pericles
In this forum I wrote that,
Christians are champions in the crimes, two world wars from Christians against Christians, Colonists the best killers and magicians on our planet, nations disappeared, one genocide followed the other and everything was OK. Slavery the best business in the town, half African population sold as slaves by Christians. When first Christians won ethnics, they destroyed schools, libraries, arts, and created the best detention centers in many Greek islands. Crusaders the sharpest knife in the universe, they killed not only the Muslims but thousands of Christians , see Byzantium. Turn your head around on our planet and you will see who are the real killers. We do the main job but we blame the Muslims. They are good but to kill their self, as suicide bombs, the idiots! Today Christians have convinced their self, that they are innocent, the hypocrites.

Pericles, I thought you was more experience, The best way to fight David is to ignore him, without to show it. Religious people do not use their brain, David is smart, and you can not convince them with your way. If you continue to attack David you will make him a leader, there are many like him in America. DO YOU WANT IT?
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

"Actually Ginx, I think it is rather sweet that Boaz has found a new friend." (Quote: Pericles)

HA!! Thanks for the giggle.
________________________________

"The best way to fight David is to ignore him, without to show it." (Quote:Antonios S.)

Like you are doing?.?.?.?.?...

1)Antonios, with respect, I am not about to take advice from you regarding this man, who by his very absence here confirms my suspicions that he HAS phoned you.
Let me make it very clear;- I take a VERY dim view of your need to tell me how to behave to a poster who has a track record of behaving badly to others.
We can continue ad nauseam, but your view on this matter will have no effect on me whatsoever.
So give it up.

2)You are free of course, to post what you want where you want; but to be honest with you, I rather resent that you have chosen to embroil yourself in something that has absolutely nothing to do with the thread subject.
It is insulting to me that you are wasting my time with the kind of 'preaching' that is so familiar to many on this forum.

It would be nice if you could get back to the forum topic.

Sorry Ginx, but there is just a touch of unfinished business here.

>>It would be nice if you could get back to the forum topic.<<

Since Antonios has addressed his remarks to me, I'd appreciate your permission to respond, just this once.

Antonios, you would do well to take your own advice. You wrote:

>>Christians are champions in the crimes, two world wars... Colonists the best killers and magicians on our planet, nations disappeared, one genocide followed the other... Christians have convinced their self, that they are innocent, the hypocrites.<<

That isn't argument, that is polemic. And you of all people should know that the root of polemic is polemikos, meaning warlike or belligerent, from polemos, war.

How can you imagine that this supports your contention that the "best way to fight David is to ignore him"?

>>Religious people do not use their brain, David is smart<<

Eh? Logically, this means that either i) David is smart but doesn't use his brain or ii) David is not religious. While either could be true, how does this meet your proposal that "the best way to fight David is to ignore him, without to show it"?

>>If you continue to attack David you will make him a leader, there are many like him in America<<

The thing is, I don't "attack David". I question his motives and ask him to provide evidence for his more outrageous statements. By showing that there is little of substance to support his continuous anti-Islamic invective, I can at least satisfy myself that I am doing my bit to prevent him from becoming a "leader" of any kind.

As I have said to him on many occasions, all he is doing with his rabble-rousing is to nurture a culture of distrust and fear. It is not Boaz that will become Australia's Oswald Mosley, but given the chance, he'll be somewhere in the crowd, carrying a "Love Jesus" banner.

So, with no apologies, I will stick with Ginx at the barricades against the mindless hate-speak that Boaz promotes so assiduously.

If that's OK with you, of course.

It's OK with ME, kiddo!!

.....because what we are both saying is valid.