Quote:
Originally Posted by Withano
But even in this thread alone, you've policed your own language? And I'm presuming you'd be a bit taken aback if you heard somebody use language that you wouldnt personally use because of the lines and boundaries that you have set yourself?
Seems like there is just more of a common sense approach to language instead of a PC culture that dictates language to me. And this is evident because non-PC people also reframe from some words to avoid insulting others.
Culture will change, and language will adapt, and I dont think this has anything to do with political correctness, its just that all people (PC, non-PC, and everyone inbetween) wants to avoid insulting others where they can.
|
Severe appearance deficit instead of ugly - yes real common sense that.
PC is for control freaks and/or lap dogs who can't think for themselves and need 'encouragement' to think the 'right' way according to those who have nothing better to do but come up with ridiculous 'replacement' names for perfectly reasonable ones. There were some awful words used in the past such as mongols, cretins and spastics and the use of such words was phased out, and rightly so, but handicapped and many others used today are perfectly reasonable words.
Of course people shouldn't be able to just blatantly offend people with the use of offensive words but the replacement of perfectly acceptable words such as handicapped for physically defective is sheer stupidity. Defective is a horrible word - I would rather be called physically handicapped, if disabled, than physically defective. Another word increasingly being used is 'challenged' i.e. Physically challenged which I would put on a par with 'incapable' or 'useless' which personally I find much more offensive. Each to their own but the point being the words being 'replaced' are not offensive words - just some trying to exert their opinion over others by the use of dubious methods.
People have to challenge such nonsense just as PC attempts to challenge the establishment - we can't have one rule for one and another for another can we.