ChatterBank1 min ago
University Tells Students Britain 'invaded' Australia
And there’s me thinking the Aussies were down to earth, sensible people immune to the nonsense of political correctness. How disappointing.
http://
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
What words offend you here naomi24?
Rather than 'invaded', do you think 'settled' is more accurate?
Or perhaps we should use, 'popped by'?
I think that 'invaded' is closer to the truth than 'settled', but perhaps a compromise word (so as not to offend those who don't want to hear the unsavoury truth about what actually happened to those native to Oz) is 'colonised'.
Is that sanitised enough for those who would rather not know about Australian history?
Rather than 'invaded', do you think 'settled' is more accurate?
Or perhaps we should use, 'popped by'?
I think that 'invaded' is closer to the truth than 'settled', but perhaps a compromise word (so as not to offend those who don't want to hear the unsavoury truth about what actually happened to those native to Oz) is 'colonised'.
Is that sanitised enough for those who would rather not know about Australian history?
SP, as you well know, I don’t ‘do’ politically correct ‘offence’, and I’ve already said I am well aware of the history, so your sarcasm is misplaced. I am simply incredulous at the ever increasing, and decreasing, elasticity of our language. For example, I was under the impression that it’s considered correct to refer to indigenous peoples as ‘Native American’, ‘Native Australian’, ‘etc., but the word ‘Native’ has now been deemed inappropriate by this university. Similarly, at one time we were taught that it was very rude to refer to black people as black. Coloured was the preferred term, but now, even though 'The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People' in the USA is still very much in evidence, ‘coloured’ is deemed offensive, so we are obliged to say ‘black’. The whole thing strikes me as utter nonsense. As the introductory voice-over in the old US television comedy, ‘Soap’, would have it - “Confused? You will be!”
Incidentally, your post at 12:13 should be addressed to Steg. I can’t recall anyone claiming that everyone in Europe rubbed along together in a happy-go-lucky manner, but I think he’s under the impression that Australia was some sort of Utopia before the wicked British happened upon it.
Incidentally, your post at 12:13 should be addressed to Steg. I can’t recall anyone claiming that everyone in Europe rubbed along together in a happy-go-lucky manner, but I think he’s under the impression that Australia was some sort of Utopia before the wicked British happened upon it.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
naomi24
If I were you, I wouldn't expend any energy on intractable semantics.
Know this - everyone is different. Some words and phrases that one person would find offensive, someone else won't.
Some women hate being called a 'lady'. Some don't.
You know what I do? I tailor my language to my audience. It's something that most sensible people do.
When I'm with my mates in a bar in Shoreditch on a Friday night, the words I use are quite different to those I use when I'm round my mum's on a Sunday afternoon.
For God's sake - you've got one set of people quibbling on about which words to use, and there's other people grizzling about the quibbling.
What a ridiculous waste of flipping energy. Who cares about a university in another continent. Surely this is a matter where we should read the story, perhaps comment - but avoid getting worked up about it?
If I were you, I wouldn't expend any energy on intractable semantics.
Know this - everyone is different. Some words and phrases that one person would find offensive, someone else won't.
Some women hate being called a 'lady'. Some don't.
You know what I do? I tailor my language to my audience. It's something that most sensible people do.
When I'm with my mates in a bar in Shoreditch on a Friday night, the words I use are quite different to those I use when I'm round my mum's on a Sunday afternoon.
For God's sake - you've got one set of people quibbling on about which words to use, and there's other people grizzling about the quibbling.
What a ridiculous waste of flipping energy. Who cares about a university in another continent. Surely this is a matter where we should read the story, perhaps comment - but avoid getting worked up about it?
AOG
Good example - the word 'gay' has been redefined a number of times since its first inception.
I believe it's original meaning was 'a man who consorts with (female) prostitutes.'
Those who yearn for its early 20th century meaning 'happy / carefree' don't realise that was the third or fourth time it changed meaning.
Good example - the word 'gay' has been redefined a number of times since its first inception.
I believe it's original meaning was 'a man who consorts with (female) prostitutes.'
Those who yearn for its early 20th century meaning 'happy / carefree' don't realise that was the third or fourth time it changed meaning.
naomi24
The NAACP isn't going to change it's name to reflect current semantic standards because it's a brand.
Remember back in the 1980s there was a company called 'Radio Rentals'? Well, it only rented out televisions and television equipment, but because the brand name had already been established, it kept with it.
Same with the Radio Times. The name would imply that it focuses on the schedule for radio programmes, and that simply isn't the case.
A more considered answer to your question can be found here:
https:/
But back to the question I posed to you - would you use the term 'retard' to describe a mentally handicapped person?
The NAACP isn't going to change it's name to reflect current semantic standards because it's a brand.
Remember back in the 1980s there was a company called 'Radio Rentals'? Well, it only rented out televisions and television equipment, but because the brand name had already been established, it kept with it.
Same with the Radio Times. The name would imply that it focuses on the schedule for radio programmes, and that simply isn't the case.
A more considered answer to your question can be found here:
https:/
But back to the question I posed to you - would you use the term 'retard' to describe a mentally handicapped person?
SP, you’ve lost me with Radio Rentals and Radio Times ….I don’t see the correlation between that and 'offence' …...but moving on…… the point is we used to call Native Americans Red Indians. That is no longer acceptable, so we call them Native Americans. This university has now deemed the word ‘Native’ to be unacceptable, so in order to comply with their pronouncement, what are we to call the indigenous people of North America? We actually have no idea of the identity of those who originate these ideas, but nevertheless we all kowtow because to do otherwise would be considered politically incorrect, and therefore unacceptable.
In answer to your question, no, I would never use the term ‘retard’. I would, however, deem people who are retarded, retarded.
Your link says it all. “Why is the C still allowed?” The author means Coloured. See what I mean?
In answer to your question, no, I would never use the term ‘retard’. I would, however, deem people who are retarded, retarded.
Your link says it all. “Why is the C still allowed?” The author means Coloured. See what I mean?
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.