UK: Meddling with the English language again

Oh, Tremula, my old pal, you don't get to use those words either.

signed,

the inconsistent PC brigade

For anyone wondering, Paul is referring to his use of 'coloured' 'negro' 'queer' 'fag' and 'baby killer'.  All of which are edited out of his posts when he uses them.

If that makes me the inconsistant PC brigade then so be it.

I think you should edit your own posting for using those words to show what you banned! 

I think you should edit your own posting for using those words to show what you banned! 

Ah, but you're forgetting that I'm inconsistent in my PC brigading.

Obviously the word bastard has been bastardised over the years!

Well not really. The word used as an illegitmate child goes back to 11th century English. The vulgar use of the word dates back to the 1830s.

But isn't the censorship of swear words more to do with maintaining standards of decency than with being "PC"? .

Yes, that's the way I have always viewed the use of swear words in public.

But isolating a word from context and declaring that it's offensive per se is exactly what is happening with these guides, requests in government departments, etc.

In fact you can find plenty of examples on this very forum.  Or you would be able to find them if my perfectly regular, inoffensive uses of normal English had not fallen foul of "PC" censorship, which can't even be consistent.

These types guides simply acknowledge that more than one meaning or context exists for some words and phrases, explains them and suggests alternates.

Change doesn't come easy sometime but if you prefer to use words or phrases based on one set meaning  you'll end up not being able to communicate at all one day -- people either won‘t understand or refuse to interact with you. In my opinion you should be more gay about it. Really, I try to be, when things bother me. In fact, I have enough gayness for both of us and maybe one day I'll come up and inject some gaiety into you so you'll be gay too.

In fact, I have enough gayness for both of us and maybe one day I'll come up and inject some gaiety into you so you'll be gay too.

 

For anyone wondering, Paul is referring to his use of 'coloured' 'negro' 'queer' 'fag' and 'baby killer'.  All of which are edited out of his posts when he uses them.

If that makes me the inconsistant PC brigade then so be it.

And which demonstrates exactly the points about not taking things in context (use of words which are not offensive in themselves in a non-derogatory way), and about inconsistent and arbitrary decisions (one slang word is supposedly offensive while another is not). 

As for the last one, you know full well that many of us find the attitudes that you (meaning the "pro-choice" people in general) hold to be highly offensive, so if you are offended by a spade being called a spade then, as you say, so be it. 

But isn't the censorship of swear words more to do with maintaining standards of decency than with being "PC"?

Yes.  But that highlights yet more glaring inconsistencies with the "language police" who promote the sort of stuff noted in the article.  Look at what happens with the likes of the BBC today over complaints of language.   When viewers complain about the liberal use of four-letter words and sometimes the most foul obscenities on TV the response is often words to the effect of "If you don't like it, switch it off."    Yet at the same time they're busy editing old episodes of Only Fools & Horses for re-broadcast in case a line like "There's bound to be a Pakistani shop open somewhere" might result in a complaint.   

Maybe you agree with the latter or maybe you don't (I think the thread about that is in Pettifog somewhere), but either way it illustrates some pretty crazy double standards about causing offense.

'Coloured', 'negro', 'queer', 'fag' and 'baby killer' not offensive? Says you. Who are you anyway-- the language police? The use of those words are derogatory to many people.  You know they are offensive and by deliberately saying they are not makes you as guilty as the people who you believe are trying to impose a speech code, which you obviously you think is proper, as long as it's your code that’s used.

But that highlights yet more glaring inconsistencies with the "language police" who promote the sort of stuff noted in the article.  Look at what happens with the likes of the BBC today over complaints of language.   When viewers complain about the liberal use of four-letter words and sometimes the most foul obscenities on TV the response is often words to the effect of "If you don't like it, switch it off."

You're mixing up your issues.  When it comes to language on TV, of course you (generic you; not you specifically) can change the channel if there's material that bothers you.  When it comes to language coming from a police officer, you don't have much recourse if you don't like the way the police officer is speaking to you.  As the person representing the law, it's incumbent on the police officer to be professional, and avoid using language that might give a member of the public the idea that the law is being applied in anything less than an impartial manner.

As for the unrelated tangent, the editing of old movies and TV shows to reflect modern language is dumb.  I'll stipulate to the stuff about editing past episodes of Only Fools and Horses.  I don't watch it, so I don't care. 

Back to the issue, I still don't get what the big deal is.  People in jobs who deal with the public are routinely told what to say and what not to say.  When I worked on cruise ships, there was a rule that instead of saying "you're welcome," we were supposed to say "my pleasure."  Somebody in guest relations thought it sounded nicer, and it's their ship so it's their rules. 

The same goes for police officers.  If the boss says "Don't say 'fag' when dealing with the public.  I know you mean 'cigarette' but somebody might mishear you or misunderstand," then that's that.  If a police officer has some desperate need to say "fag," they could say it as much as they like when they're not on duty.

Back to the issue, I still don't get what the big deal is.

I think that the big deal is that some people (no names, no pack drill) have issues that drive them to go on the Interwebs and rant about the way liberal attitudes "offend" them.

The use of those words are derogatory to many people. 

There must be dozens of groups out there deliberately trying to offend the people they claim to represent then, e.g.

http://www.naacp.org/
http://www.uncf.org/
http://www.ncnw.org/
http://qapa.org/
http://queer.berkeley.edu/
http://diversitycenter.org/affiliates/lgbtiq-youth-task-force/

I think that the big deal is that some people (no names, no pack drill) have issues that drive them to go on the Interwebs and rant about the way liberal attitudes "offend" them.

Yes, many liberal attitudes are offensive to many of us.  But for some reason those same liberals who are ready to try and find offensive intent in innocent things don't apply the same standards when it comes to offending others.

There must be dozens of groups out there deliberately trying to offend the people they claim to represent then, e.g.

http://www.naacp.org/
http://www.uncf.org/
http://www.ncnw.org/
http://qapa.org/
http://queer.berkeley.edu/
http://diversitycenter.org/affiliates/lgbtiq-youth-task-force/
 

And like I said the last time this came up, you show me your membership card to any of those organizations and I'll be happy to let you use those words.

Thank you.  You've just shot your own earlier claim to pieces.

There must be dozens of groups out there deliberately trying to offend the people they claim to represent then, e.g.
http://www.naacp.org/
http://www.uncf.org/
http://www.ncnw.org/
http://qapa.org/
http://queer.berkeley.edu/
http://diversitycenter.org/affiliates/lgbtiq-youth-task-force/
Yes, many liberal attitudes are offensive to many of us.  But for some reason those same liberals who are ready to try and find offensive intent in innocent things don't apply the same standards when it comes to offending others.

If someone wants to identity themselves as coloured, queer, fag (or baby-killer for some bizarre reason) than that is their business.

If someone wants to start an ars***** club so all the arseholes of the world can meet and be arses together, then so be it as well. Calling someone an ars*****, even a person who is one, would still be rude, and potentially offensive, in my opinion.

I’m sorry you find liberal views offensive. Your non-liberal view on this matter isn’t offensive to me; it’s just that I have trouble reconciling the fact that you are condemning supposed speech codes by instituting one of your own.

You are free to call someone coloured, queer, fag or whatever you choose. The people who you called these things are free to be offended in turn.

If you were a police officer, whose salary is paid for in part by the taxes paid by the coloureds, queers, and fags of this country, you should be held accountable for language that some people feel demeans them.

There must be dozens of groups out there deliberately trying to offend the people they claim to represent then, e.g.

http://www.naacp.org/
http://www.uncf.org/
http://www.ncnw.org/
http://qapa.org/
http://queer.berkeley.edu/
http://diversitycenter.org/affiliates/lgbtiq-youth-task-force/


Yes, many liberal attitudes are offensive to many of us.  But for some reason those same liberals who are ready to try and find offensive intent in innocent things don't apply the same standards when it comes to offending others.

See, the funny thing here is that we all know that you know full well what the difference is with those words being used in these organizations.

So I could sit here and reasonably explain that groups such as the NAACP, UNCF and NCNW were formed before the phrase African-American came into usage.  At the time, they were using the preferred, polite terminology.  It was preferred because it was a hell of a lot nicer than what most people on the street were calling them.  And then, of course, I could also point out that, by and large, one only really hears the groups referred to by their acronyms these days.  So, it's not as though today's members are going around referring to themselves or other African-Americans by those words in everyday usage.

And as for the queer studies issue, I could explain that it refers to a specific branch of academic scholarship dedicated to the issues and culture of the LGBTQ community (and the Q stands for 'questioning').  I could explain that the use of the term 'queer' in this phrase, and in the related phrase 'queer theory,' can be seen as an ironic usage of the term.  I could use words like 'reclaiming.'

The trouble is, you and others who share your opinion already know all of this.  You simply reject it out of hand because you hate the people involved, and refuse to see as valid any world-view that isn't your own.  You'll refuse to ever understand any argument that anyone makes on this subject because you don't want to. 

So, we're all wasting our time, really. But some of us enjoy that sort of thing.