Nobunaga wrote:... OMG!! It's a white man's disease!!
Carleton University is in Ottawa, Canada. At Carleton the students participate in the annual Shinearama fundraiser. This is an annual fundraising event involving students from 65 colleges and universities across Canada. Carleton has been involved for 25 of the 50 years of the Shinearama; but no longer.
The Shinearama, you see, has been raising money for the Canadian Cystic Fibrosis Foundation. That's not good, at least insofar as the Carleton University Student's Association is concerned. The student association was told that Cystic Fibrosis only affects white people. This meant that the disease was not inclusive enough. So ... Carleton University is out. Now these bright students have figured out that Cystic Fibrosis actually affects some people of color - and they're looking for a way to get out of this mess.
... If they hadn't been so politically correct they wouldn't be there in the first place.
... Idiots.
...
Just so you know, following the decision the commitee members involved were shamed into resignation.
Pffft, like you'd have any idea.
actually i do i'm a student at Carleton.
I think irony has a cape and makes "Whoosh"-noises.
john9blue wrote:It's a bad thing when it impedes free speech, which it almost always does. Just another example of how modern liberals differ from classical liberals...
Political correctness does not impede free speech. Period.
If political correctness doesn't impede free speech it certainly ruins it. You have to say 12words instead of two. Gay-same sex orientated. Retard-sub par IQ(except you can't use the word sub, as that infers that someone doesn't perform as well as others....) So it has to be Retard-intellectually challenged(understatement of all time) The list could go on for a while so will stop here.
john9blue wrote:It's a bad thing when it impedes free speech, which it almost always does. Just another example of how modern liberals differ from classical liberals...
Political correctness does not impede free speech. Period.
If political correctness doesn't impede free speech it certainly ruins it. You have to say 12words instead of two. Gay-same sex orientated.
Or homosexual, which is one word.
BoganGod wrote:Retard-sub par IQ(except you can't use the word sub, as that infers that someone doesn't perform as well as others....) So it has to be Retard-intellectually challenged(understatement of all time) The list could go on for a while so will stop here.
I honestly have NEVER heard any individual referred to by the term "sub par IQ" (as a label, rather than as a statement preceded by "he has a" or something similar).
Honestly, you sound like you're too lazy to consider the words you're using before you use them. I don't believe I could consider that a good thing.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
john9blue wrote:It's a bad thing when it impedes free speech, which it almost always does. Just another example of how modern liberals differ from classical liberals...
Political correctness does not impede free speech. Period.
It certainly manipulates, discourages, and belittles free spech, but it does not restrict it. oh, except for in government, which now runs over 50% of America. If you speak freely in the face of political correctness, you can count on being voted out, getting fired, or at least popping for the lawyer to try to keep your job.
john9blue wrote:It's a bad thing when it impedes free speech, which it almost always does. Just another example of how modern liberals differ from classical liberals...
Political correctness does not impede free speech. Period.
It certainly manipulates, discourages, and belittles free spech, but it does not restrict it. oh, except for in government, which now runs over 50% of America. If you speak freely in the face of political correctness, you can count on being voted out, getting fired, or at least popping for the lawyer to try to keep your job.
That's simply not true. I work in the public school system, a veritable bastion of what you would consider "political correctness" and yet, I have no problems at all speaking my mind freely and easily. I am able to do this because I also SPEAK RESPECTFULLY. That some of you believe political correctness keeps you from speaking freely just shows how absolutely UN-free your minds are.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
Woodruff wrote: Political correctness does not impede free speech. Period.
It certainly manipulates, discourages, and belittles free spech, but it does not restrict it. oh, except for in government, which now runs over 50% of America. If you speak freely in the face of political correctness, you can count on being voted out, getting fired, or at least popping for the lawyer to try to keep your job
That's simply not true. I work in the public school system, a veritable bastion of what you would consider "political correctness" and yet, I have no problems at all speaking my mind freely and easily. I am able to do this because I also SPEAK RESPECTFULLY. That some of you believe political correctness keeps you from speaking freely just shows how absolutely UN-free your minds are.
how do you go about being "respectful" or what are some key things to remember to keep it respectful?
Woodruff wrote: Political correctness does not impede free speech. Period.
It certainly manipulates, discourages, and belittles free spech, but it does not restrict it. oh, except for in government, which now runs over 50% of America. If you speak freely in the face of political correctness, you can count on being voted out, getting fired, or at least popping for the lawyer to try to keep your job
That's simply not true. I work in the public school system, a veritable bastion of what you would consider "political correctness" and yet, I have no problems at all speaking my mind freely and easily. I am able to do this because I also SPEAK RESPECTFULLY. That some of you believe political correctness keeps you from speaking freely just shows how absolutely UN-free your minds are.
how do you go about being "respectful" or what are some key things to remember to keep it respectful?
Quite honestly, I'm confused by your question. The key thing to keep in mind to keep discussions respectful is to keep your focus on what you're trying to accomplish with the discussion. If I'm talking to a parent about their kid's grades, for instance...and I see the problem as (we'll say) a combination of low motivation on the kid's part and possibly a reading disability. I wouldn't tell the parent that "Jerome can't read and he doesn't even try" (which is just going to make the parents defensive and probably pissed off), I'd tell them that "the two of us (the parent and I) need to figure out what will motivate Jerome because he is not working up to his potential, and could you please have him tested to see if something is keeping him from being able to read successfully. So, what do you do at home to motivate Jerome?".
This gets the message across to the parent that their kid isn't trying, it splits the onus on motivating their kid between the parent and myself (two of the three places where it belongs...the third being the kid himself) and it hopefully gets the kid tested for a reading disability (although it amazes me how often parents fight this, as if they're too proud to have their child have dyslexia).
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
I wouldn't call Reid's statements non-politically-correct, so much as I just don't understand what the point of saying them at all was. Why refer to the President as a light-skinned Negro...was there some context that made that relevant? Why refer to his dialect or lack of one...was there some context that made that relevant? I just see the comments as...unnecessary.
I DEFINITELY don't see them as worthy for anyone to ask him to step down. They're just...I don't know...unnecessary, like I said.
Anyone know the context?
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
I wouldn't call Reid's statements non-politically-correct, so much as I just don't understand what the point of saying them at all was. Why refer to the President as a light-skinned Negro...was there some context that made that relevant? Why refer to his dialect or lack of one...was there some context that made that relevant? I just see the comments as...unnecessary.
I DEFINITELY don't see them as worthy for anyone to ask him to step down. They're just...I don't know...unnecessary, like I said.
Anyone know the context?
negro is politically incorrect. And it doesnt matter the context. the mere fact that because of the use of the word negro, People are calling for him to step down. That was my point. of course, if he was a republican......oops there we go again.....
Last edited by Phatscotty on Sun Jan 10, 2010 9:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I wouldn't call Reid's statements non-politically-correct, so much as I just don't understand what the point of saying them at all was. Why refer to the President as a light-skinned Negro...was there some context that made that relevant? Why refer to his dialect or lack of one...was there some context that made that relevant? I just see the comments as...unnecessary.
I DEFINITELY don't see them as worthy for anyone to ask him to step down. They're just...I don't know...unnecessary, like I said.
Anyone know the context?
My point has less to do with political correctness and more to do with double standards, such as they are. I think we (US society) needs to make up our minds - can we apologize and move on, or should we resign/quit and move on? One or the other, but it needs to be the same for both parties.
I wouldn't call Reid's statements non-politically-correct, so much as I just don't understand what the point of saying them at all was. Why refer to the President as a light-skinned Negro...was there some context that made that relevant? Why refer to his dialect or lack of one...was there some context that made that relevant? I just see the comments as...unnecessary.
I DEFINITELY don't see them as worthy for anyone to ask him to step down. They're just...I don't know...unnecessary, like I said.
Anyone know the context?
My point has less to do with political correctness and more to do with double standards, such as they are. I think we (US society) needs to make up our minds - can we apologize and move on, or should we resign/quit and move on? One or the other, but it needs to be the same for both parties.
yes, political correctness and double standards are 2 different things, but I consider them to be cousins. If they had kids, 50-50 it would be retarded.
Oh yeah, Trent Lott....why was he forced out again?
Phatscotty wrote:Oh yeah, Trent Lott....why was he forced out again?
For expressing regret that segregationist Strom Thurmond hadn't won the Presidency in 1948 so we could have avoided "these problems." Obviously, being nostalgic over segregation and using an outmoded term for black people is the same.
Phatscotty wrote:Oh yeah, Trent Lott....why was he forced out again?
For expressing regret that segregationist Strom Thurmond hadn't won the Presidency in 1948 so we could have avoided "these problems." Obviously, being nostalgic over segregation and using an outmoded term for black people is the same.
Yeah, except that's not really right.
What happened was, he said Thurmond should have won the presidency and problems would have been avoided. He didn't say integration was a problem, but that was, of course, read into his comments. He also didn't use a deragatory term for black people, like Reid did. The situations are not comparable, although some would have you believe Lott's comments were worse (although, considering Thurmond continued to serve in the Senate after his presidential bid... why the f*ck should we even care what Lott said). Do I think Lott should have resigned? Maybe. What I do think is that the hypocrisy of politicans (both sides) knows no bounds.
All that being said, there are Democrats still serving in Congress who voted against the Civil Rights Act.
All this is evidence of hypocrisy, which I hate with the fire of a thousand suns.
Phatscotty wrote:Oh yeah, Trent Lott....why was he forced out again?
For expressing regret that segregationist Strom Thurmond hadn't won the Presidency in 1948 so we could have avoided "these problems." Obviously, being nostalgic over segregation and using an outmoded term for black people is the same.
Yeah, except that's not really right.
What happened was, he said Thurmond should have won the presidency and problems would have been avoided. He didn't say integration was a problem, but that was, of course, read into his comments. He also didn't use a deragatory term for black people, like Reid did. The situations are not comparable, although some would have you believe Lott's comments were worse (although, considering Thurmond continued to serve in the Senate after his presidential bid... why the f*ck should we even care what Lott said). Do I think Lott should have resigned? Maybe. What I do think is that the hypocrisy of politicans (both sides) knows no bounds.
All that being said, there are Democrats still serving in Congress who voted against the Civil Rights Act.
All this is evidence of hypocrisy, which I hate with the fire of a thousand suns.
It's kind of hard for me to think of what other problems Lott could possibly have been talking about. Strom runs on a segregationist platform, Trent wishes he'd won, thinks "problems" would have been averted. Anyways, I don't write this to defend anybody, but comparing Reid (who, notably unlike Lott has a rather good history on race relations, including, it's gotta be mentioned, being an early sponsor of Obama) to Trent Lott is simply looking at what they say (also, it was "Negro dialect." The man's old, people spoke like this once) as opposed top what they mean. Also, if you think the fact that Obama didn't use "a Negro dialect" helped him become president, you would be right. It's almost too banal to mention, but Obama is no hepcat, and that is why he won Iowa.
Phatscotty wrote:Oh yeah, Trent Lott....why was he forced out again?
For expressing regret that segregationist Strom Thurmond hadn't won the Presidency in 1948 so we could have avoided "these problems." Obviously, being nostalgic over segregation and using an outmoded term for black people is the same.
Yeah, except that's not really right.
What happened was, he said Thurmond should have won the presidency and problems would have been avoided. He didn't say integration was a problem, but that was, of course, read into his comments. He also didn't use a deragatory term for black people, like Reid did. The situations are not comparable, although some would have you believe Lott's comments were worse (although, considering Thurmond continued to serve in the Senate after his presidential bid... why the f*ck should we even care what Lott said). Do I think Lott should have resigned? Maybe. What I do think is that the hypocrisy of politicans (both sides) knows no bounds.
All that being said, there are Democrats still serving in Congress who voted against the Civil Rights Act.
All this is evidence of hypocrisy, which I hate with the fire of a thousand suns.
It's kind of hard for me to think of what other problems Lott could possibly have been talking about. Strom runs on a segregationist platform, Trent wishes he'd won, thinks "problems" would have been averted. Anyways, I don't write this to defend anybody, but comparing Reid (who, notably unlike Lott has a rather good history on race relations, including, it's gotta be mentioned, being an early sponsor of Obama) to Trent Lott is simply looking at what they say (also, it was "Negro dialect." The man's old, people spoke like this once) as opposed top what they mean. Also, if you think the fact that Obama didn't use "a Negro dialect" helped him become president, you would be right. It's almost too banal to mention, but Obama is no hepcat, and that is why he won Iowa.
My point, I guess, is that if one party rails against members of another party for something as seemingly innocuous as wanting one guy to win the presidency, that same party should rail with the same gusto for someone who uses the term "negro."
Alternatively, they could all just shut the f*ck up; which, frankly, is what I want them to do.
spurgistan wrote:For expressing regret that segregationist Strom Thurmond hadn't won the Presidency in 1948 so we could have avoided "these problems." Obviously, being nostalgic over segregation and using an outmoded term for black people is the same.
No, that's you inserting what you want to believe about Senator Lott (and most likely the Republican Party). Lott never said he was nostalgic over segregation. Find one quote...just one...where Lott claims that he wishes for a return to segregation.
spurgistan wrote:It's kind of hard for me to think of what other problems Lott could possibly have been talking about.
Of course it's hard for you to think of other problems because you're an Obama/Democrat Party supporter.* Considering the fact that Lott said the same thing about Thurmond back in 1980 in the context of fiscal responsibility (specifically in the area of balancing the budget), that would give us an indication as to Lott's true thoughts about what those "other problems" might be.
*(just as it's difficult to accept that Mike Brown lied about his credentials in order to obtain the FEMA post, and finding that Bush did a terrible job verifying it. Their handling of the Katrina aftermath was inexcusable.)
Except for Al Franken. He can stay. He's the best.
jay_a2j wrote:hey if any1 would like me to make them a signature or like an avator just let me no, my sig below i did, and i also did "panther 88" so i can do something like that for u if ud like...
thegreekdog wrote:All that being said, there are Democrats still serving in Congress who voted against the Civil Rights Act.
Indeed. Outrage over one dude saying something that might be racist is rather silly when congress is full of peeps on both sides who did far worse shit.
"Some motherfuckers are always trying to ice skate uphill."
Duane: You know what they say about love and war. Tim: Yes, one involves a lot of physical and psychological pain, and the other one's war.
