actually, "Arab terrorists" is an offensive term if you use it to apply to all acts of terrorism. It insinuates that all terrorists are Arab, which is far from the truth. Terrorism is a tactic, not a type of person. If the term was used to describe a specific terrorist attack where the terrorists were of Arab descent, then it would be appropriate. That's not being PC, that is getting your facts straight.JimHawking said:Half of what Bob said was right the other half was frankly pretty stupid.
-People using anti-political correctness as a shield, yeah screw them.
-People going WAY out of their way to avoid being "offensive" can be very annoying. For example, the insistence that the the phrase Arab terrorists is somehow offensive drives me a bit crazy.
No offense Bob you clearly don't have a very good grip on politics, your doing what bad comedians do. Most comedians can't do competent political commentary and confuse preaching an ideology (typically liberal) with wit. Stick to geekdom, you actually have something interesting to say about that.
*facepalm*SilverUchiha said:Not trying to confuse people. Just trying to make the world better. Why let bad words always remain bad? Why not revise and improve them? What is the point of the fucking dictionary? What is the point of words (aside from communication)? What I'm getting at is who arbitrarily decided to give words whatever meaning they have? People are always saying that the declaration of independence should be revised as the language is outdated and should be updated to meet with the language and technology of today. Why can't that same logic apply to all words? I honestly think you are just closed minded on such an issue that has such a simple fix.BmoreAkuma said:That is an ideal fantasy when comes "words and their meaning" If that is the case then what is the point of a dictionary? Why not just change all words in human language with different meaning then it would lead to confusion on the person "intent" or "meaning"SilverUchiha said:And that is an argument I would completely agree with. Why do we let words like "******" or "******" have power over us to be "forbidden words"? Why can't we change the meaning? Surely they can be used in a different way. Hell, the guys from South Park tried using "******" as an alternative for "douchey jerks who ride Harleys". If there is genuine hatred behind the words, then there is more to it. But if not, they are just words and nothing more.BmoreAkuma said:That argument is like saying calling a black the n word or calling a gay male the F word then have the nerve to say "it's only words dont give them power"
Does it really matter if it's politically incorrect or not?mr_rubino said:*facepalm*SilverUchiha said:Not trying to confuse people. Just trying to make the world better. Why let bad words always remain bad? Why not revise and improve them? What is the point of the fucking dictionary? What is the point of words (aside from communication)? What I'm getting at is who arbitrarily decided to give words whatever meaning they have? People are always saying that the declaration of independence should be revised as the language is outdated and should be updated to meet with the language and technology of today. Why can't that same logic apply to all words? I honestly think you are just closed minded on such an issue that has such a simple fix.BmoreAkuma said:That is an ideal fantasy when comes "words and their meaning" If that is the case then what is the point of a dictionary? Why not just change all words in human language with different meaning then it would lead to confusion on the person "intent" or "meaning"SilverUchiha said:And that is an argument I would completely agree with. Why do we let words like "******" or "******" have power over us to be "forbidden words"? Why can't we change the meaning? Surely they can be used in a different way. Hell, the guys from South Park tried using "******" as an alternative for "douchey jerks who ride Harleys". If there is genuine hatred behind the words, then there is more to it. But if not, they are just words and nothing more.BmoreAkuma said:That argument is like saying calling a black the n word or calling a gay male the F word then have the nerve to say "it's only words dont give them power"
Would it be politically incorrect for me to assume you're a straight white male from a well-off nation?
Because, y'know, this is starting to become a meme.
people like you are really stupid if you think that required "gymnastics". A lot of people make sweeping generalizations about Arab people and come to these same conclusions. You would have to be naive or willfully ignorant to claim otherwise.JimHawking said:@NOOOB1
This is exactly what I'm talking about. "Arab Terrorists" as a phrase means "terrorists who are Arab" and nothing else. You had to do a bunch of linguistic gymnastics to make that offensive. So if I said "Irish Terrorists" in reference to the 1980's IRA that would be offensive to ALL Irish people? What the hell are you talking about? People like you are extremely annoying.
Father Time said:You are a cretin.Zero V85 said:I agree that Shawshank was a great movie but that kind if thing is a one way street. It's fine to turn a white character in a book into a black character in a movie but I dare you to show me an example of the reverse. I grantee the ACLU would have that movie shut down for being raciest and insensitive if it ever got put into production in the first place.Shadow_Kid said:Have you seen Shawshank Redemption?DPunch4 said:I don't agree with everything you said. I don't want a black person taking a white persons role in any remake. Unless it's re-imagining the whole movie. You wouldn't cast a white kid as Michael Jackson when hew was 8.
Morgan Freeman plays Red - redheaded irishmen. I dare you to say that movie was not awesome.
Nicholas Cage in the film "World Trade Center".
Angelina Jolie plays "Mariane Pearl" in A Mighty Heart
Do I even have to go to all the films about Ancient Egypt? Or through David Caradenes career of yellowface cinema?
You need to go do your f***ing research son.
Father Time said:And for that you have my apologies.0thello said:'Father Time said:You are a cretin.Zero V85 said:I agree that Shawshank was a great movie but that kind if thing is a one way street. It's fine to turn a white character in a book into a black character in a movie but I dare you to show me an example of the reverse. I grantee the ACLU would have that movie shut down for being raciest and insensitive if it ever got put into production in the first place.Shadow_Kid said:Have you seen Shawshank Redemption?DPunch4 said:I don't agree with everything you said. I don't want a black person taking a white persons role in any remake. Unless it's re-imagining the whole movie. You wouldn't cast a white kid as Michael Jackson when hew was 8.
Morgan Freeman plays Red - redheaded irishmen. I dare you to say that movie was not awesome.
Nicholas Cage in the film "World Trade Center".
Angelina Jolie plays "Mariane Pearl" in A Mighty Heart
Do I even have to go to all the films about Ancient Egypt? Or through David Caradenes career of yellowface cinema?
You need to go do your f***ing research son.
You quoted the wrong guy.