Can You Be Fined For Emptying A Swimming...
Civil2 mins ago
Could somebody PLEASE . . .
59 Answers
start a political party, pressure group, anything - to claim back common sense, allow political incorrectness and bring some sanity back into our lives?
I'm sure I can't be the only one who now expects the end of free speech for fear of offending someone, the immasculation of the English language eg 'chair' instead of chair (dare I write it?) man, the banning of the nursery rhyme 'Ba Ba Black Sheep' etc?
I'd do it myself but sadly I'm not a chief, only a very sincere indian. (Can i still say that?)
I'm sure I can't be the only one who now expects the end of free speech for fear of offending someone, the immasculation of the English language eg 'chair' instead of chair (dare I write it?) man, the banning of the nursery rhyme 'Ba Ba Black Sheep' etc?
I'd do it myself but sadly I'm not a chief, only a very sincere indian. (Can i still say that?)
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by LewPaper. 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.
http://news.bbc.co.uk.../football/9373192.stm
Doesn't look like the term 'Chairman' has been banned either...this from the supposedly left leaning BBC.
Doesn't look like the term 'Chairman' has been banned either...this from the supposedly left leaning BBC.
Coobeastie: Sorry but I don't understand the point you're trying to make. Do you maintain that a time span reduces its importance? If you are the Magna Carta had better look to its laurels and you say "Doesn't look like the term 'Chairman' has been banned either..." - who said it had been?
Do try and keep up.
Do try and keep up.
grasscarp mentioned not being able to say Christmas. The myth that we can't say it and must replace with winterval dates back 12 years and was a non story at the time....still doesn't stop it being churned up as an example of pc gone mad though.
And wasn't it you who suggested that you can't say chairman any more as an example of pc...this is plainly not true as the link I've provided shows chairman is still in use.
And wasn't it you who suggested that you can't say chairman any more as an example of pc...this is plainly not true as the link I've provided shows chairman is still in use.
sexism is wrong and must be addressed whenever it happens...shrugging it off as though its just harmless banter is harmful and solves nothing.
the only way to change what is deeply ingrained in the psyche of many is by a gradual,'baby steps' change of the things the older generations cling to, even what to some are 'the small things'...but not by orders and hoohaa...that just gets peoples backs up - as we all know.
little by little with each generation our intolerance and predjudices get less and less...and thats simply because people spoke out ...and made small changes...pointed out intolerance to people who perhaps hadn't even realised...this then gets passed on.
such as a new approach to our language...what is wrong with chairperson...?? acknowledging sex in some circumstances is irrelevant.
or waiter? or actor? an actor is an actor... regardless of sex...why do we need to add tress on the end of things that dont require gender separation?
it just subconsciously divides us
the only way to change what is deeply ingrained in the psyche of many is by a gradual,'baby steps' change of the things the older generations cling to, even what to some are 'the small things'...but not by orders and hoohaa...that just gets peoples backs up - as we all know.
little by little with each generation our intolerance and predjudices get less and less...and thats simply because people spoke out ...and made small changes...pointed out intolerance to people who perhaps hadn't even realised...this then gets passed on.
such as a new approach to our language...what is wrong with chairperson...?? acknowledging sex in some circumstances is irrelevant.
or waiter? or actor? an actor is an actor... regardless of sex...why do we need to add tress on the end of things that dont require gender separation?
it just subconsciously divides us
Coobeestie, We havent made up anything mentioned here. As examples of Christmas being dumbed down, since this is the point you particularly picked up on, Lambeth Council were warned not to mention Christmas in any publicity material and the lights to be called winter or celebrity. Norwich school, and other schools, replaced their nativity play in favour of a celebration of different faiths. Gordon Brown, and other government ministers, rejected the word Christmas on their cards and only had Seasons Greetings. Birmingham Council came up with Winterval instead of Christmas.
Whether these things were recent or not these things really happened and are not myths. I prefered life before political correctness (and health and safety guidelines, but better not start something new here!)
Whether these things were recent or not these things really happened and are not myths. I prefered life before political correctness (and health and safety guidelines, but better not start something new here!)
joko, there is nothing wrong with 'chairperson' except its clumsiness as language. Use it if you like. But what is wrong with 'chairman' and 'chairwoman' when people of those sexes are in the chair? (My wife in committee has always called herself 'chairman' on the grounds that she has more important things to think about than such trivialities.)
Presumably you still allow the differentiation between king and queen, prince and princess, bride and groom, mother and father, brother and sister, aunt and uncle, cow and bull, cock and hen, etc. etc. even though there are asexual generic terms to cover all of those cases. Are you trying to impoverish our wonderful language?
Presumably you still allow the differentiation between king and queen, prince and princess, bride and groom, mother and father, brother and sister, aunt and uncle, cow and bull, cock and hen, etc. etc. even though there are asexual generic terms to cover all of those cases. Are you trying to impoverish our wonderful language?
Bangs head against a brick wall.
Im not saying that isolated instances haven't occured but apart from alarmist articles that make mountains out of mole hills I've yet to see any concrete evidence that there is a concerted effort to ban Christmas or any of the other things that have been mentioned so far.
Im not saying that isolated instances haven't occured but apart from alarmist articles that make mountains out of mole hills I've yet to see any concrete evidence that there is a concerted effort to ban Christmas or any of the other things that have been mentioned so far.
Coobeastie - Whether Christmas is banned or not, important though the subject is, isn't the topic in discussion. It's the allowance of loony ideas being considered, the language, culture all being changed to accommodate those who've chosen to live here as opposed to those who've been born here. Whilst people may come here to live, they should take us as they find us. If someone came to live in your house, for whatever reason, would you allow them to change the furniture, wallpaper, carpet? Change what you can say or do and when? Of course you wouldn't. It's only a matter of scale. Welcoming aliens into our midst is one thing but bending over backwards for them is something the pride in our culture, something THEY would jealously protect, is completely out of order. If they don't like it the way it is, no-one's holding a gun to their head. And who's to say they want us to? It's only the petty-minded do-gooders who are doing what they THINK the new influx of residents want.
Leave our language, culture, history alone. Dont like it? Go home again.
Leave our language, culture, history alone. Dont like it? Go home again.
LewPaper
you seem very muddled
between whether alternatives to our traditional culture are <<being considered>> and whether <<the language, culture all being changed>> What? All of them? When they should be set in aspic somewhere around 1952 vintage.
And muddled into confusing change with <<aliens>>
<<to accommodate those who've chosen to live here as opposed to those who've been born here>> you seem to assume that everyone born here shares your reactionary views. I would suggest that isn't the case
<<If someone came to live in your house, for whatever reason, would you allow them to change the furniture, wallpaper, carpet? Change what you can say or do and when? >>
Who are these mysterious and incredibly powerful interlopers you fear so much? and what significant changes have they forced on you? Other than in your imagination?
You are muddled between myths of political correctness (and Health & Safety for goodness sake which has reduced death and injury to thousands of people) and <<aliens into our midst>>
Are you completely petrified by modern life? Perhaps you should stop reading the tabloid comics - and stop eating cheese before you go to bed.
.
you seem very muddled
between whether alternatives to our traditional culture are <<being considered>> and whether <<the language, culture all being changed>> What? All of them? When they should be set in aspic somewhere around 1952 vintage.
And muddled into confusing change with <<aliens>>
<<to accommodate those who've chosen to live here as opposed to those who've been born here>> you seem to assume that everyone born here shares your reactionary views. I would suggest that isn't the case
<<If someone came to live in your house, for whatever reason, would you allow them to change the furniture, wallpaper, carpet? Change what you can say or do and when? >>
Who are these mysterious and incredibly powerful interlopers you fear so much? and what significant changes have they forced on you? Other than in your imagination?
You are muddled between myths of political correctness (and Health & Safety for goodness sake which has reduced death and injury to thousands of people) and <<aliens into our midst>>
Are you completely petrified by modern life? Perhaps you should stop reading the tabloid comics - and stop eating cheese before you go to bed.
.
no chakka...you have merely listed partnering nouns ... i refer to job roles, where the distinction is irrelevent.
i see nothing wrong with saying chairman or chairwoman...it is the automatic title of chairman regardless of sex that is the issue....
i dont mind ones that are merely descriptive of the actual person doing the job, such as saleswoman, postman..etc
chairperson is less clumsy in a job advert than 'wanted chair man or woman'
and it is much better that chairess....
and what about manager/manageress? i have even heard bus conductress...!
why distinguish some jobs and not others? a doctor is a doctor, a chef is a chef, baker a baker etc
but you do note one interesting thing...i wonder if the notion of adding of the 'ess' onto any job done by a woman comes indirectly from the word princess...?
i see nothing wrong with saying chairman or chairwoman...it is the automatic title of chairman regardless of sex that is the issue....
i dont mind ones that are merely descriptive of the actual person doing the job, such as saleswoman, postman..etc
chairperson is less clumsy in a job advert than 'wanted chair man or woman'
and it is much better that chairess....
and what about manager/manageress? i have even heard bus conductress...!
why distinguish some jobs and not others? a doctor is a doctor, a chef is a chef, baker a baker etc
but you do note one interesting thing...i wonder if the notion of adding of the 'ess' onto any job done by a woman comes indirectly from the word princess...?
The poor old muslims seem to be infected with such fragility that their cabinet spokesperson, commented on the dinner table test being passed, as in, how awful to hurt the feelings of these poor sods.
The very poor sods who held placards up in public calling for beheadings and carnage in our green and pleasant land.
Oops - don't criticise them - until we get our much wanted new party.
The very poor sods who held placards up in public calling for beheadings and carnage in our green and pleasant land.
Oops - don't criticise them - until we get our much wanted new party.
oh dear, not the Baa Baa Back Sheep story again...
http://en.wikipedia.o...t#Baa_Baa_White_Sheep
I haven't read far enough down this thread to come to the bits about straight bananas and bans on flying the St george flag, but I's sure I shall.
http://en.wikipedia.o...t#Baa_Baa_White_Sheep
I haven't read far enough down this thread to come to the bits about straight bananas and bans on flying the St george flag, but I's sure I shall.
Zeuhl: Are these the words of an educated person or the result of a very poor typewriting lesson? It's all complete jibberish to me and Coobeatie, free thinking? with comments like yours I'm surprised you have the word 'think' in your vocabulary, it certainly isn't in your comprehension.
This listing's been on here too long - it's now attracting borderline nursery school drop-outs.
This listing's been on here too long - it's now attracting borderline nursery school drop-outs.
"This listing's been on here too long - it's now attracting borderline nursery school drop-outs."
You rang? ;o)
Common sense is a fallacy. It is neither common nor is it a sense.
If you wish to take back the streets from the hooligans now roaming them you must first come to realise that neither were ever fully in the possession them or of that which you define as the rational segment of either humanity or huwomanity.
Reason, by virtue of being an active process that must first be understood to be used to the mutual benefit of those who share an understanding of the process and its benefits, is a choice. As rational people we have no other choice but to persuade others to embrace the process that is as potentially rational beings our birthright and defining feature or to isolate ourselves from them. That is the unfortunate reality of the situation. If your choice is to build a wall around your own standards let those on both sides of that wall determine for themselves which members among these two groups are the true and rightful inhabitants of the asylum.
Peace!
You rang? ;o)
Common sense is a fallacy. It is neither common nor is it a sense.
If you wish to take back the streets from the hooligans now roaming them you must first come to realise that neither were ever fully in the possession them or of that which you define as the rational segment of either humanity or huwomanity.
Reason, by virtue of being an active process that must first be understood to be used to the mutual benefit of those who share an understanding of the process and its benefits, is a choice. As rational people we have no other choice but to persuade others to embrace the process that is as potentially rational beings our birthright and defining feature or to isolate ourselves from them. That is the unfortunate reality of the situation. If your choice is to build a wall around your own standards let those on both sides of that wall determine for themselves which members among these two groups are the true and rightful inhabitants of the asylum.
Peace!
