"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.