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.