Thunderf00t gets his own FtB blog...

[ImprobableJoe]

ImprobableJoe,

If it were to be insincere, then it wouldn't be a uniform thing that echoes throughout all of his posts. "Insincere" in this case designating that he did it on purpose in direct conflict with his tone. It can't be "Insincere" if he uses that format uniformly throughout all of his posts.

For example, if I were to sarcastically place this post in letter format and in proper tone and specter use it to rag on your inability to distinguish a user's common posting traits and to mock your lackluster ability to grasp the failing on your part with your accusation, then perhaps you would have a point in calling my post "insincere." But James did nothing of the sort. He simply uses that to sign on and off and to give order to his statements.

Not everyone is an insincere twat.

With All Due Respect,

Hytegia

My last comment on the subject: The fact that it is on every post, regardless of the content, is what makes it insincere. If you never don't say it, then you don't necessarily ever mean it. It is an affectation, not a thoughtful expression of the feelings of the moment.

Oh, and "twat" is a gendered insult better left unused. Be a little creative, try "douche-rocket" or something?

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Greetings,

I realise that modern usage of these words have changed, but I think that it would be better if the homosexual community *truly* "came out" and just used the word "homosexual". It can't be misused, like the other two words, and - dare I say - everyone would move on.

I don't want to strawman you dragan glas so I shall ask first.

Are you really saying that if homosexuals could agree on a term that can't be misused, the whole problem of inequality (towards that particular group) would vanish? Or it would at least go some way to resolving the problem?

No, I'm not saying that merely deciding to use "homosexual" would make the issue of inequality go away, but it would help alleviate the issue.

What I am saying is that those euphemisms were needed at the time to get past the wall of rejection - but now that that's been accomplished, the sooner they switch to using homosexual, the better. "Gay", "straight" and "lesbian" (which does irk me, as it's another misappropriation of a word) stand out in comparison with "heterosexual" - in contrast, "homosexual" doesn't as it's of a similar type.

One still needs education to change the underlying attitudes, which seem to be getting worse in America with the combination of various "hot button" issues and the "attack on Christianity/faith" being blamed on "liberalism", including - of course - the "gay agenda".

I have nothing against homosexuals or their seeking equality.

In relation to my "attitude" to racism/sexism/homosexuals, if someone gave me a questionnaire on American "hot button issues", and then gave my answers to a "libertarian", they'd declare me a "European socialist/pinko commie bastard/libtard".

Kindest regards,

James

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

To the contrary -
I'd say the dedication it takes to place formal headings and footings at each and every post would mean that he's sincere with every one of them.

You're only ranting at him right now because he disagreed with you - he's been doing it ever since he started on these forums with no exceptions that I have seen with my own two eyes.
Up until this point you didn't seem to think that his headings and footings on his posts were "insincere" enough to rant about when he was in absolute agreement with you, or when he was on your side in discussions. You just posited an irrelevant remark towards his posting motifs that he uses even when he's in agreement with you.

Let me put this into Marine for you, since any form of politeness or professionalism may seem "insincere" :
That's some goddamned bullshit and you know it.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

ImprobableJoe,

If it were to be insincere, then it wouldn't be a uniform thing that echoes throughout all of his posts. "Insincere" in this case designating that he did it on purpose in direct conflict with his tone. It can't be "Insincere" if he uses that format uniformly throughout all of his posts.

For example, if I were to sarcastically place this post in letter format and in proper tone and specter use it to rag on your inability to distinguish a user's common posting traits and to mock your lackluster ability to grasp the failing on your part with your accusation, then perhaps you would have a point in calling my post "insincere." But James did nothing of the sort. He simply uses that to sign on and off and to give order to his statements.

Not everyone is an insincere twat.

With All Due Respect,

Hytegia

My last comment on the subject: The fact that it is on every post, regardless of the content, is what makes it insincere. If you never don't say it, then you don't necessarily ever mean it. It is an affectation, not a thoughtful expression of the feelings of the moment.

Oh, and "twat" is a gendered insult better left unused. Be a little creative, try "douche-rocket" or something?

Gentlemen, gentlemen....

I can see your point, ImprobableJoe, regarding its apparent insincerity - but , as I've pointed out, it is similar to the salutations used in letters; and as )o(Hytegia)o( pointed out, it gives my posts order.

I would counter that if someone were to start off "nice" or "reasonable", and then turn nasty or unreasonable, would one not have a similar complaint?

Equally, if the order were reversed, one might also complain "how can you expect me to listen to what you have to say when you stuck the proverbial boot in at the start of your post?"

Either way, a poster can't win.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[ImprobableJoe]

You're only ranting at him right now because he disagreed with you - he's been doing it ever since he started on these forums with no exceptions that I have seen with my own two eyes.

You're only mentioning it because I disagreed with you earlier. You're some bullshit and you know it.

 

[Frenger]

No, I'm not saying that merely deciding to use "homosexual" would make the issue of inequality go away, but it would help alleviate the issue.

What I am saying is that those euphemisms were needed at the time to get past the wall of rejection - but now that that's been accomplished, the sooner they switch to using homosexual, the better. "Gay", "straight" and "lesbian" (which does irk me, as it's another misappropriation of a word) stand out in comparison with "heterosexual" - in contrast, "homosexual" doesn't as it's of a similar type.

One still needs education to change the underlying attitudes, which seem to be getting worse in America with the combination of various "hot button" issues and the "attack on Christianity/faith" being blamed on "liberalism", including - of course - the "gay agenda".

There is something I really don't like about this Dragan and it is this suggestion that "they" (homosexuals) should have to change anything, it's almost like you're saying they are a victim of their own bad PR, instead of victims of narrow minded, intolerant bigots who express there fear through oppression, bullying, segregation and discrimination.

The other bit I don't like is this;

I have nothing against homosexuals or their seeking equality.

Now, of course I am glad you don't have anything against homosexuals (and quite right too) However, I am less glad of your seemingly arm chair acceptance of a group seeking equality. I mean, isn't this everyone's fight? As a rational human being, shouldn't you want to join in the discourse? Stamping out irrational intolerance where ever you see it? In the same way I hope you would put someone right when they express a racist view, or a sexist view, shouldn't you be doing the same thing with people who express a childish fear of homosexuals? Equality is in everyone's interest, not just the group being victimised at the time.

Now I don't want to get too ranty here because if I'm being honest, I have learnt a lot from many of your posts and even though I know what Joe means, I kind of like your letter writing approach to posts, but I think what you are saying here is naive and counter productive. Accepting a groups fight for equality is not the same as supporting or joining in that fight and I hope you can see that.

 

[CommonEnlightenment]

Now I don't want to get too ranty here because if I'm being honest, I have learnt a lot from many of your posts and even though I know what Joe means, I kind of like your letter writing approach to posts, but I think what you are saying here is naive and counter productive. Accepting a groups fight for equality is not the same as supporting or joining in that fight and I hope you can see that.

Care to break this process down a little bit?

Would you consider a group that accepts a certain 'right' better or worse than a group that denies a certain group of people certain rights?

When you say the word 'fight' are you implying that some sort of War is needed to achieve a certain desired outcome? I realize that if you answer that question a certain way then the following questions make little or no sense but the rest of the readers may not see it that way.

If we are reasonable and rational, would we not try to exhaust as many possible options before going to war or fight for something? And can a 'fight' for something be done without the use of excessive force or coercive tactics?

Perhaps, we as a society should try to choose our words a little more carefully as to distinguish the difference between a War of violence, a fight for rights, and a granting of rights that should be evident to anyone that cares about these things?

And if so, when has a war ever really settled anything? Does that war have the potential of further polarizing the combatants to a point where no viable solution is possible? I would probably use the "Cold War" as an example. What is the real issue and problem here...... Is it fear? Is that fear rational or irrational? And can we determine if that fear is rational or irrational without keeping some sort of 'communication' open and honest? And do we as a society have a uncanny predisposition of installing fear to further drive home a point?

Can we at least try to identify the real issue here and address that problem?

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

No, I'm not saying that merely deciding to use "homosexual" would make the issue of inequality go away, but it would help alleviate the issue.

What I am saying is that those euphemisms were needed at the time to get past the wall of rejection - but now that that's been accomplished, the sooner they switch to using homosexual, the better. "Gay", "straight" and "lesbian" (which does irk me, as it's another misappropriation of a word) stand out in comparison with "heterosexual" - in contrast, "homosexual" doesn't as it's of a similar type.

One still needs education to change the underlying attitudes, which seem to be getting worse in America with the combination of various "hot button" issues and the "attack on Christianity/faith" being blamed on "liberalism", including - of course - the "gay agenda".

There is something I really don't like about this Dragan and it is this suggestion that "they" (homosexuals) should have to change anything, it's almost like you're saying they are a victim of their own bad PR, instead of victims of narrow minded, intolerant bigots who express there fear through oppression, bullying, segregation and discrimination.

Having reread the first sentence, I realised that I was not clear - my meaning of "issue" was different in the second use of it than in the first.

Perhaps I should have added:

No, I'm not saying that merely deciding to use "homosexual" would make the issue of inequality go away, but it would help alleviate the issue of how badly homophobes react to the words "gay", etc.

And, no, I'm not saying they're the victims of their own PR - good or bad; nor am I denying that they're the victims of homophobia.

If you know that someone will react to a word badly, shouldn't you use a different one?

For this same reason, we speak of "black" or "African American" (in the US), instead of "coloured" - much less the "n-word".

Agreed, calling a homophobe "straight" is not the same thing - but how will the homophobe react? They'll automatically think that the speaker is the very thing they despise or, at least, someone who's "friendly" towards the very people they despise.

Instead, what if the speaker refers to the homophobe as "heterosexual"?

It's less likely to be a red rag to a bull - simply because that's how the homophobe sees him/herself.

They may well take it as some form of "affirmation" of their "(wo)manliness".

I'm suggesting that the homosexual community change their approach to lessen the negative reaction further: this is no more than what they did in choosing to use the words "gay" and "straight" in the first place.

The other bit I don't like is this;

I have nothing against homosexuals or their seeking equality.

Now, of course I am glad you don't have anything against homosexuals (and quite right too) However, I am less glad of your seemingly arm chair acceptance of a group seeking equality. I mean, isn't this everyone's fight? As a rational human being, shouldn't you want to join in the discourse? Stamping out irrational intolerance where ever you see it? In the same way I hope you would put someone right when they express a racist view, or a sexist view, shouldn't you be doing the same thing with people who express a childish fear of homosexuals? Equality is in everyone's interest, not just the group being victimised at the time.

Now I don't want to get too ranty here because if I'm being honest, I have learnt a lot from many of your posts and even though I know what Joe means, I kind of like your letter writing approach to posts, but I think what you are saying here is naive and counter productive. Accepting a groups fight for equality is not the same as supporting or joining in that fight and I hope you can see that.

Although it may appear to have been indicative of a armchair/back seat attitude, it wasn't.

I can honestly say that I've rarely run into any form of bigotry - but then, I don't tend to hang out with people with bigoted views: like the BNP in the UK, for example.

That doesn't mean I wouldn't oppose such when I come across it. After all, if I'm prepared to object to the misuse of words like "lesbian", etc, ...

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Now I don't want to get too ranty here because if I'm being honest, I have learnt a lot from many of your posts and even though I know what Joe means, I kind of like your letter writing approach to posts, but I think what you are saying here is naive and counter productive. Accepting a groups fight for equality is not the same as supporting or joining in that fight and I hope you can see that.

Care to break this process down a little bit?

Would you consider a group that accepts a certain 'right' better or worse than a group that denies a certain group of people certain rights?

When you say the word 'fight' are you implying that some sort of War is needed to achieve a certain desired outcome? I realize that if you answer that question a certain way then the following questions make little or no sense but the rest of the readers may not see it that way.

If we are reasonable and rational, would we not try to exhaust as many possible options before going to war or fight for something? And can a 'fight' for something be done without the use of excessive force or coercive tactics?

Perhaps, we as a society should try to choose our words a little more carefully as to distinguish the difference between a War of violence, a fight for rights, and a granting of rights that should be evident to anyone that cares about these things?

And if so, when has a war ever really settled anything? Does that war have the potential of further polarizing the combatants to a point where no viable solution is possible? I would probably use the "Cold War" as an example. What is the real issue and problem here...... Is it fear? Is that fear rational or irrational? And can we determine if that fear is rational or irrational without keeping some sort of 'communication' open and honest? And do we as a society have a uncanny predisposition of installing fear to further drive home a point?

Can we at least try to identify the real issue here and address that problem?

I'm certain, that when Frenger says "fight", he doesn't mean that we go on the rampage, picking fights with people who use bigoted language.

I believe he means opposing such - whether through campaigns, etc, or directly when faced with it, through challenging the bigot's views.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Frenger]

Care to break this process down a little bit?

Would you consider a group that accepts a certain 'right' better or worse than a group that denies a certain group of people certain rights?

It depends on the circumstance. (I feel a trap coming

When you say the word 'fight' are you implying that some sort of War is needed to achieve a certain desired outcome? I realize that if you answer that question a certain way then the following questions make little or no sense but the rest of the readers may not see it that way.

No sorry, I don't mean fight as in violence, only discourse.

If we are reasonable and rational, would we not try to exhaust as many possible options before going to war or fight for something? And can a 'fight' for something be done without the use of excessive force or coercive tactics?

Perhaps, we as a society should try to choose our words a little more carefully as to distinguish the difference between a War of violence, a fight for rights, and a granting of rights that should be evident to anyone that cares about these things?

I completely agree and should make sure people know what I mean in the future. I sometimes forget that actually, no one here knows anything about me and I need to explain more fully.

 

[televator]

Greetings,

Again, televator, you've missed what I've said in the same post in which I gave the simmering pot analogy.
From the self-same post in which I used this analogy, I said this:

Using political correctness as a lid to prevent these will not address the under-lying issues.

In order to address such issues, you need education.

And, for those who can't afford that "privilege", it needs to be provided through public funding. Something which is taken for granted (as a "privilege" perhaps) in Europe, but which the right-wing in America are attempting to dismantle.

Potential religious tensions need to be addressed through teaching Comparative Religion. Over time, the youth will grow up realising that there's nothing "special" about their own religion's perspective on god(s) and may come to give up any potential fundamentalist attitudes. These tensions will dissipate over time.

Cultural tensions, including racial, can be similarly addressed through History and Multi-cultural/Ethnic Studies. In this way, students will learn how different cultures lived and interacted, and - over time - come to appreciate their differences whilst seeing others as fellow human beings. Again, such studies, are being voted down by southern states' legislators - due to racism.

Gender-based issues can be also be addressed through education. Simple contradictions of inequality in pay, for example - an hour's work is an hour's work, regardless of whether it's done by a man, a woman, black, white, by someone in a wheelchair or not - are easily understood by young people today. Again, such additions to the curricula are being voted down by conservatives.

In other words, I'm not suggesting "do nothing (to rock the boat/change anything)", I'm suggesting - what I believe to be - a better solution than political correctness.

Or should I describe it as a "augmented form of political correctness", which includes education rather than just calling people on epithets?

Kindest regards,

James

Okay...last time I'm going to rewrite my response. Effing browser crashed. FML.

Right, so I'm totally on board with the education bit. I am of the opinion that it would serve to reduce a lot societal ailments -- especially in the US. One effect could be that it might reduce the tendency for people to be overtly prejudgemental.

However, I don't think it should come as a surprise that bigotry and sexism will always maintain presence in political/religious groups. Nor do I think the process of obtaining an education is a sure fire immunization against such tendencies. So anti-harassment policies (which you seem to view as "PC") are still important to have.

If all you were getting at was this idea of combining/expanding anti-harassment practices with education, your previous statements didn't quite read that way.

Political correctness exists where people are unable to treat each other decently in its absence.

In Europe. we can tease each other without getting all bent out of shape or raising "the card" - whether sexist, racist, etc. We recognise that there are differences - and resultant tensions - between the various cultures in Europe; teasing each other is a way of defusing it.

Like all the "Paddy the Irishman" jokes in the UK - or the "Upper-class Twit of the Year" - or mainland European jokes, like the one about the German driving through France, when he spots a Frenchman and a hedgehog on the road...he swerved to avoid the hedgehog.

If, through political correctness, you're unable to defuse underlying tensions, with what are you left?

A former male colleague would tease his female colleagues when they came to his desk. He'd point out that his desk was a mess - when the female would ask "So?", he'd reply, "Well, you're a woman, aren't you?...Aren't you going to tidy it up?".

Some of them would rise to the bait - others would simply laugh.

It really comes down to individuals, whether they're mature enough to have out-grown any "bees in their bonnet" or "chips on their shoulder" and be able to take such things in their stride.

Like Cristina shrugging off unwelcome attention as being chatted-up - in comparison with others who might perceive it as "sexual harassment".

My take on political correctness is similar to my take on "positive discrimination": it shouldn't be necessary and is counter-productive - for example, in the latter case, it is clearly still discrimination, and, as such, is likely to cause the same resentment, just in different groups of people.

[That is not to say that one can't - or shouldn't - have guidelines at conventions, clubs, organizations, etc; if only for the organisers' and venues' legal protection. Even my chess club has "rules of conduct" for its members and visitors.]

You seem a bit...everywhere on the issue, but you've mostly spent more time speaking of how unnecessary or even detrimental policies that you see as being "PC" are. Faaaah.... I think I'm done here. I hate arguing with someone who tries real hard to make some sort of dissenting statements only to find that they just agree with you in some vague manner.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

You're only mentioning it because I disagreed with you earlier. You're some bullshit and you know it.

Actually, I 100% revised my entire outlook on the subject based around several of your statements - I just don't announce my failures dramatically unless there's too much e-drama built around it.

:roll:

 

[ImprobableJoe]

You're only mentioning it because I disagreed with you earlier. You're some bullshit and you know it.

Actually, I 100% revised my entire outlook on the subject based around several of your statements - I just don't announce my failures dramatically unless there's too much e-drama built around it.

:roll:

I was just unsuccessfully trying to make the point that "you only said X because we disagreed" is very often a bullshit statement to make.

I'm glad you changed your mind, though. I was afraid I was going to be forced to thrash you about the head and shoulders with a shit-dipped sea bass... you can imagine how horrible the clean-up is on an enterprise of that nature.

 

[Gnug215]

A quick point...

I think it's safe to say that many Europeans, myself included, may have a slightly different understanding of the term "politically correct" - or at least the connotations it carries.

Here in the EU, the term PC is actually a bit of a joke, a bit of a "scare story" of things going over board over there. Notice some of the outlandish examples that DraganGlas lists.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

A quick point...

I think it's safe to say that many Europeans, myself included, may have a slightly different understanding of the term "politically correct" - or at least the connotations it carries.

Here in the EU, the term PC is actually a bit of a joke, a bit of a "scare story" of things going over board over there. Notice some of the outlandish examples that DraganGlas lists.

Here in the U.S. the term "PC" is what right-wing bigots use to excuse their bigotry, as though being racist or sexist stops existing when they are called out on it, the claim invalidated by the invocation of "PC". So for instance Rush Limbaugh will spend several days calling a college student a prostitute with lines of customers 50-men long outside her house, because she spoke out about insurance paying for birth control pills. Ignoring the fact that using birth control doesn't require working in one of the whorehouses that Limbaugh likes to frequent, his defense to criticism consisted almost entirely on calling his critics "PC" as though otherwise people would have thought it was perfectly OK to spend four days fantasizing about a private citizen's sex life in detail.

 

[The Felonius Pope]

Here in the U.S. the term "PC" is what right-wing bigots use to excuse their bigotry, as though being racist or sexist stops existing when they are called out on it, the claim invalidated by the invocation of "PC".

I really hate the attitude that a lot of right wingers (at least the ones I know) have toward political correctness. My own relatives have said things like, "Fuck PC, fuck voting, we need to get that commie ni**er out of the white house!" :facepalm:

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Here in the U.S. the term "PC" is what right-wing bigots use to excuse their bigotry, as though being racist or sexist stops existing when they are called out on it, the claim invalidated by the invocation of "PC".

I really hate the attitude that a lot of right wingers (at least the ones I know) have toward political correctness. My own relatives have said things like, "Fuck PC, fuck voting, we need to get that commie ni**er out of the white house!" :facepalm:

Right, because the problem is "PC" and not the fact that your relatives are ignorant racists. :lol:

 

[The Felonius Pope]

Right, because the problem is "PC" and not the fact that your relatives are ignorant racists. :lol:

I hate to say this about my own relatives, but they really are ignorant racists. I can't tell you how much anti-African-American, anti-Mexican, anti-Muslim bullshit I've heard. I try not to demonize people, but certain members of the right scare the hell out of me.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

The only thing I see where PC is a problem is in mandatory spurring positions in colleges based upon race / sex in the name of "diversity." It's literally a policy by the school's administering authority involving the denial of applicants so that mandatory spots are given to different races and sexes is outlandish.

It's the 21st century. The best applicants should be picked regardless of race or sex being a factor.

That is the only example of PC gone heywire that I will not budge on.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

The only thing I see where PC is a problem is in mandatory spurring positions in colleges based upon race / sex in the name of "diversity." It's literally a policy by the school's administering authority involving the denial of applicants so that mandatory spots are given to different races and sexes is outlandish.

It's the 21st century. The best applicants should be picked regardless of race or sex being a factor.

That is the only example of PC gone heywire that I will not budge on.

Ummmm... you should give that one up too, because it makes you look kind of silly.

Regardless of right-wing lies, the reality of college admissions is that anyone allowed in based on diversity is only going to bump people who are borderline not getting in anyways. Trust me, Harvard isn't saying "let's get more black people in here" and then desperately hunting for black people with 1.5 GPAs. The "affirmative action" admissions to Harvard have a 3.75 GPA and no family connections.