Jump to content

PC thread


Crouchie's Lawyer
 Share

Recommended Posts

PC is currently in a negotiation stage. PC is a legitimate reaction to the 'acceptable' racism, sexism and homophobia of previous generations. We are now negotiating the level to which we should react and, sometimes, PC goes too far.

 

What annoys me is the use of phrases like 'the PC brigade', which give the term PC a pejorative sense it doesn't have on its own. 'PC gone mad' is a legitimate concept as it alludes to the negotiation stage. It is right to point this out, to negotiate the level. It is not right to completely disregard PC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Problem is it's because a dirty term. Like 'immigrant', which alone should mean nothing bad at all. Just stupid media based hyperbole drivel as usual. At the end of the day it just comes down to basic respct for each others rights and beliefs, and not being a f*ckwit. Anyone who is against that, as a concept are, as such, f*ckwits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Today it's been announced you are not allowed to say i'm British as it is now offensive.

 

How far does this go? Can we say "i'm English" or "i'm from Southampton" or even "i'm an alcoholic"?

 

Oh by the way, I have brown eyes, so all you blue eyed people I have this to say, "you smurfians".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Today it's been announced you are not allowed to say i'm British as it is now offensive.

 

How far does this go? Can we say "i'm English" or "i'm from Southampton" or even "i'm an alcoholic"?

 

Oh by the way, I have brown eyes, so all you blue eyed people I have this to say, "you smurfians".

 

Announced by whom? Only Celtic fans would find "I'm British" offensive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Today it's been announced you are not allowed to say i'm British as it is now offensive.

 

How far does this go? Can we say "i'm English" or "i'm from Southampton" or even "i'm an alcoholic"?

 

Oh by the way, I have brown eyes, so all you blue eyed people I have this to say, "you smurfians".

 

The people in the Council that came up with this ruling should be taken to a home for the criminally insane.

 

Here in Muslim land, any dealing with any organisation, be they Government, Banks, Phone Company etc requires you by LAW to state your Nationality. The only answer for us that they accept is for us to state we are BRITISH, and that we hold a BRITISH passport. The name on the passport is United Kingdom of Great Britain etc.

 

Do you get that councillors - UNITED KINGDOM OF.

 

It is YOU who are being non-PC.

 

I suggest that the council members take a vacation to Riyadh for a week then to here to understand how stop being morons

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Announced by whom? Only Celtic fans would find "I'm British" offensive.

 

Penny Smith on GMTV read it from one of the papers this morning.

 

A STORM erupted last night after a council warned staff about referring to people as being British – in case they found it offensive.

 

Town hall bosses said that the term suggested a “false sense of unity” and could upset those from Scotland, Wales and Ireland as well as members of ethnic minorities.

 

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/70662/British-That-s-offensive

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't believe that any of you are this stupid, to take this seriously. Reading through this thread gives me the impression like some foreign enemy has come into our country and is in Buckingham Palace now demanding the Queen make a curry for them.

 

When was the last time you actually heard one of these laws go through? You can still say 'brainstorm' without offending epiletics. You can still see Christmas trees in West Quay. You will still be able to say what your nationality is.

 

It's all controversial mongering media like the Mail which reports this stuff, and people like them help stem bigger racial boundries between us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Penny Smith on GMTV read it from one of the papers this morning.

 

A STORM erupted last night after a council warned staff about referring to people as being British – in case they found it offensive.

 

Town hall bosses said that the term suggested a “false sense of unity” and could upset those from Scotland, Wales and Ireland as well as members of ethnic minorities.

 

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/70662/British-That-s-offensive

 

And just like the thread in The Lounge, this is also a load of cobblers. Someone has written guidelines advising people to be aware of their audience, to avoid causing offence when communicating with the general public. Sensible advice, you might think. Everyone moderates what they say according to who is listening, it's one of the most basic principles of communication.

 

The Express's agenda for interpreting that as a 'ban' on calling yourself British is to provoke in the reader a feeling of righteous indignation, that they are being put upon, that yet another of the perceived ills in this country is attributable to those who are different from 'us'. And it works.

 

Sickening xenophobic c**ts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When was the last time you actually heard one of these laws go through?

 

Regardless of if they get passed or not, the pure suggestion of these 'laws' or rules should never happen.

 

So, there are still xmas tree's in west quay, right, but which c*nt came up with the suggestion (implemented or not) to remove them as to not offend?

 

The Daily Mail may blow things out of proportion with their reporting and exagerate things a lot, but there is an initial plonker who says/does something which merits a story being wrote about it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regardless of if they get passed or not, the pure suggestion of these 'laws' or rules should never happen.

 

So, there are still xmas tree's in west quay, right, but which c*nt came up with the suggestion (implemented or not) to remove them as to not offend?

 

The Daily Mail may blow things out of proportion with their reporting and exagerate things a lot, but there is an initial plonker who says/does something which merits a story being wrote about it!

 

So they shouldn't say "we shouldn't say it because it might offend them" because it might offend you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So they shouldn't say "we shouldn't say it because it might offend them" because it might offend you?

 

I think the issue is that they want to live their lives normally and (and I would be hazarding a guess here) white 'know it all's' in the local government or business are obviously trying to score points on the ethical front by suggesting these absurd rules. This brings it to the attention of the Daily Mail and like and consequently fuels a lot of hate mongering towards the ethnic minorities.

 

I think given the choice, they would say it actually offends them more when it is suggested than when it isnt!

 

But yes, saying it 'may' offend someone else or a certain 'group' of people does offend me. How about the person/people it is allegedly going to offend give their view? If the majority of them (or even a significant minority) are offended, then by all means bring in a law which will not offend them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the issue is that they want to live their lives normally and (and I would be hazarding a guess here) white 'know it all's' in the local government or business are obviously trying to score points on the ethical front by suggesting these absurd rules. This brings it to the attention of the Daily Mail and like and consequently fuels a lot of hate mongering towards the ethnic minorities.

 

I think given the choice, they would say it actually offends them more when it is suggested than when it isnt!

 

But yes, saying it 'may' offend someone else or a certain 'group' of people does offend me. How about the person/people it is allegedly going to offend give their view? If the majority of them (or even a significant minority) are offended, then by all means bring in a law which will not offend them.

 

And you wouldn't perhaps accept that when these things are merely an idea passed round for debate in (for example) a local council, they aren't a problem, particularly when nothing comes of them?

 

And that maybe the problem actually arises when The Daily Screeching Hitler gets hold of this non-story, brings in a lot of rent-a-quote jobsworths (see Express article above) and tells everybody to get angry that their liberties are being infringed?

 

The 'banning' of "sing from the same hymnsheet", the 'banning' of saying you're British, the 'banning' of christmas trees, along with so many other thing that have been 'banned' by the 'PC brigade'; none of these thing actually happened! They were ideas put forward for sensible discussion by the appropriate bodies. You or I would never have heard about them had they not been picked up and twisted by the press. To blame the people who had these ideas for the way they have been so willfully and publicly misrepresented, and to claim that it is they who are trying to score cheap points, would be the act of a spazz.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To blame the people who had these ideas for the way they have been so willfully and publicly misrepresented, and to claim that it is they who are trying to score cheap points, would be the act of a spazz.

 

The press may fan the flames yes, but it was said by someone in the first place for them to get hold of it. Albeit shot down or refused striaght away, my point is, what the hell was going through the minds of the person/persons who said it initially?

 

Did they not engage their brains before speaking?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The press may fan the flames yes, but it was said by someone in the first place for them to get hold of it. Albeit shot down or refused striaght away, my point is, what the hell was going through the minds of the person/persons who said it initially?

 

Did they not engage their brains before speaking?

 

I'm beginning to think you might be better qualified to answer that question than I am.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm beginning to think you might be better qualified to answer that question than I am.

 

You know what, f*ck off you muggy little c*nt. I made a relevant point and your hatred for all things Daily Mail and the like means you can't let someone get their view point across without you twisting it to see what you want to see which you then jump on with a completely pointless arguement.

 

All I was saying is that whoever has these genius thoughts of 'lets ban or outlaw x, y or z for the benefit of 1, 2 or 3' is insane, however you jumping to the defence of these people is making me think it may have been your decision to suggest banning xmas trees! You certainly are digging in your heels sticking up for them!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And all I'm suggesting is that, just because someone puts forward the idea that maybe they wouldn't have a Christmas tree, and just because any suggestion has to be properly noted and discussed, doesn't mean you should assume that someone is trying to 'score points'. Just that people are trying to look at things from all angles, which is surely a good thing? Who knows, maybe they were trying to score points, but it's a big leap into conjecture, whereas the motivations of the media that twist the story are pretty damn apparent.

 

I don't understand why you want to make so many assumptions about these people (their motivation, the depth of their research, even the colour of their skin). And I don't understand your argument that people shouldn't be allowed to suggest things, when your beef seems to be about people restricting what we're allowed to say; that seems to defy logic. And I also don't understand what 'muggy' means, but i reckon I can have a guess on that one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And all I'm suggesting is that, just because someone puts forward the idea that maybe they wouldn't have a Christmas tree, and just because any suggestion has to be properly noted and discussed, doesn't mean you should assume that someone is trying to 'score points'. Just that people are trying to look at things from all angles, which is surely a good thing? Who knows, maybe they were trying to score points, but it's a big leap into conjecture, whereas the motivations of the media that twist the story are pretty damn apparent.

 

I don't understand why you want to make so many assumptions about these people (their motivation, the depth of their research, even the colour of their skin). And I don't understand your argument that people shouldn't be allowed to suggest things, when your beef seems to be about people restricting what we're allowed to say; that seems to defy logic. And I also don't understand what 'muggy' means, but i reckon I can have a guess on that one.

 

Leave 'im Stain... 'e ain't worf it...etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And all I'm suggesting is that, just because someone puts forward the idea that maybe they wouldn't have a Christmas tree, and just because any suggestion has to be properly noted and discussed, doesn't mean you should assume that someone is trying to 'score points'. Just that people are trying to look at things from all angles, which is surely a good thing? Who knows, maybe they were trying to score points, but it's a big leap into conjecture, whereas the motivations of the media that twist the story are pretty damn apparent.

 

I don't understand why you want to make so many assumptions about these people (their motivation, the depth of their research, even the colour of their skin). And I don't understand your argument that people shouldn't be allowed to suggest things, when your beef seems to be about people restricting what we're allowed to say; that seems to defy logic. And I also don't understand what 'muggy' means, but i reckon I can have a guess on that one.

 

People can suggest what they wish to suggest, and providing there are genuine reasons behind it, then fair enough. We dont know the in's and out's behind it all, you are right, however, it seems someone has suggested banning christmas trees as the christmas tree is traditionally linked with Christianity and as such, would offend non Christians. Regardless of what 'fuel' the Daily Mail may or may not have added to the fire, you cannot honestly say this is a sensible suggestion?

 

For example, the FA would never say 'lets trial a square lead filled ball' would they? Its just a stupid f*cking thing to say. Its common sense. My 'beef' is with the people/person who suggested this as a serious thing to consider.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People can suggest what they wish to suggest, and providing there are genuine reasons behind it, then fair enough. We dont know the in's and out's behind it all, you are right, however, it seems someone has suggested banning christmas trees as the christmas tree is traditionally linked with Christianity and as such, would offend non Christians. Regardless of what 'fuel' the Daily Mail may or may not have added to the fire, you cannot honestly say this is a sensible suggestion?

 

For example, the FA would never say 'lets trial a square lead filled ball' would they? Its just a stupid f*cking thing to say. Its common sense. My 'beef' is with the people/person who suggested this as a serious thing to consider.

 

Maybe the Christmas Tree thing was put forward by someone who was offended? We don't know. Maybe rather than saying "let's ban Christmas trees!", someone actually said "what do you guys think about not having a Christmas tree this year"? We don't know that either, but it would sound far less ludicrous. It was considered, it was rejected. I don't know where you work, but I'd imagine people aren't told at brainstorming sessions "if you have an idea and you're not sure whether to say it, keep quiet".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The press may fan the flames yes, but it was said by someone in the first place for them to get hold of it. Albeit shot down or refused striaght away, my point is, what the hell was going through the minds of the person/persons who said it initially?

 

Did they not engage their brains before speaking?

 

We don't judge all Saints fans as being retarded mongtards just because we read your posts, so don't judge this country or the 'PC brigade just because of one person's suggestion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...