Don’t Even Think It

Just… wow.
I’m detecting elevated stress patterns in your voice. Please report to the correction booth. 300 cycles should do it.

That’s the gayest, most lame thing ever and it should be illegal to be this retarded. Angry ghetto man haters pale in comparison to this exotic form of stupidity.

Are euphemisms now mandatory?
I imagine that euphemism (and with it possibly a degree of question-begging) will at least be encouraged. Or rather, deviation from euphemism will be discouraged, if not publicly chastised. Imagine thirty pious students all sucking their teeth in unison.
Which makes me wonder what kind of debate will then be possible.

“John Spartan, you are fined five credits for repeated violations of the verbal morality statute” – a joke from 1993…

This PLU department might find that teaching stuff may be made slightly awkward if use of the word “illegal” becomes illegal is curtailed.

I would just like to say… on second thoughts, maybe not.
Well, quite. Setting aside the claims of emotional delicacy regarding such crushing words as “angry” and “illegal,” the aim, presumably, is to blunt realism and instead encourage a kind of neurotic woolliness. And it seems likely that the need to memorise a new and corrected vocabulary – and which common adjectives are now verboten – will have the effect of limiting any debate to a certain kind of person. An in-group will “debate” among itself and arrive at conclusions the in-group finds congenial.

George Orwell could not be reached for comment.

Also… why is the direction of travel always the same, i.e. to ban things? (How I have grown to hate that word).
Surely if it is “my language, my choice,” then Person A is free to choose whatever language they like to express themselves, even if their choice of words hurts the feelings of Person B. And, if hurt feelings are the prime metric, surely artificially curtailing the use of language – and therefore self-expression – has the very real potential to hurt Person A’s feelings, no?

George Orwell could not be reached for comment.
I couldn’t help noticing that the first paragraph goes from referring to a grant from the Diversity Center to talking about Angie Hambrick as director of the dCenter.
Presumably we will all know once we’ve truly crossed the point of no return when Diversity Center becomes DivCen and The Pride Foundation becomes PriFun and so on.

I suggest we follow it, but also turn it around to annoy them…
So instead of calling the person in poster an illegal immigrate (I assume that is what she is bitching about) we call her just an immigrate and people who aren’t illegal immigrates we refer to as legal immigrates. Likewise for those other posters, normal people get a prefix; intelligent, calm, hetro, etc. Were as the idiots in the posters get no prefix.
Since we can’t get off this planet yet and leave these muppets to it, I say we have some fun trolling them.

If this student’s ripping up the word illegal, does that she’s still OK with being fat?
And surely this one is actually at least a little bit lame, as that piece of paper seems to be giving no small amount of resistance to her virtuous rage there.
And surely there is a deep level of irony in this one?

Translation: I have a right to hear only the opinions I already agree with. Everyone else can go fuck themselves.
It would at least be more honest.

I’m with the fat bird. In the unauthorized entry and appropriation business, we find the word highly offensive as well.

I am routinely aghast at how accurate Demolition Man turned out to be.

How long until the word “ban” is banned causing proponents to be strangled by their own intestines?

As I said over at Kate’s, this begs for a t-shirt. One long sentence using all the banned words.
David said: “Which makes me wonder what kind of debate will then be possible.”
None, obviously. That’s the point. They want to get right to the hitting people they don’t like and throwing them in jail part.
They’re Leftists. Its what they do.

David said: “Which makes me wonder what kind of debate will then be possible.”
None, obviously. That’s the point.
I suppose what’s obnoxious about such efforts, which have occurred in several universities, is the ruse that it’s being done in the name of “inclusivity” and “thinking critically,” when in fact its effect, and intended effect, seems quite the opposite. It’s basically a tool for those inclined to reflexive dogmatism. Again, the objective seems to be to predetermine how any notional debate will play out by limiting the kinds of adjectives and descriptions (and thereby nods to reality, law, etc.,) that are permissible, thereby marginalising or excluding people who holds views deemed unsophisticated.
For instance, the objection to the word “illegal” in a context of immigration law is so tendentious it seems little more than an attempt to beg the question and to minimise, even erase, an obvious distinction between those who enter a country lawfully and those who don’t. Apparently, one isn’t supposed to consider it significant when a person’s very first act on entering your country is to disregard one of its most fundamental laws. And to succumb to that level of euphemism and evasion, to accept it as how one must talk about the issue, is to pretty much surrender the argument.

I am routinely aghast at how accurate Demolition Man turned out to be
Fasten your seat belt. Idiocracy is next. In some ways we’re already living the early parts.

Parents need to take a more proactive role in determining which colleges their kids attend, and which courses they take. Schools like this one should be utterly ostracized by a vast majority of potential students, and thereby suffer some consequences for their idiocy. It seems that the kids of everyone I know are taking kinesiology, and their parents sit idly by and permit (and funded) such a choice, despite the obvious fact that schools are obviously churning out far more kinesiology grads than the economy can possibly bear. Same thing with the choice of schools themselves. Everyone seems to assume that they’re all great, when in fact, most are Marxist cesspools of nonsense, like Pacific Lutheran.

My italics are in need of expurgation. Only Official Scrabble Players’ Dictionary should be in italics.

It is clear that the fat brownish woman who could easily be mistaken for a Wetback who has slipped over the border and looks like a dyke with dyed red hair is very serious about avoiding bad words that could offend.
However, given her wonderful sensitivity is she aware that her remarkable sexual turn-off appearance is powerful enough to give many men ED. She should be ashamed of herself for interfering with the reproductive rights of a humble male.

So can they call mean Angry White Male

Any word (yeah, a pun) on the social effects of “moronic”, “stupid”, “ghastly” or “twat”?

I’m fairly sure ‘moronic’ and ‘stupid’ are ableist, therefore you’re not allowed to say them.

Wow. Feel the love.

The remark about ‘little boy falsetto voices’ is surely a sign of patriarchal oppression. What about those of us with little girl voices?

Well, I hope they don’t outlaw “dipshit,” because then I won’t be able to calls ’em like I sees ’em.

My language, my choice
You can just hear the very reasonable tone of voice, there. What they are of course saying is
Your words, my choice
(Your college, my choice
Your business, my choice
Your shirt, my choice
etcetc)
(I clean up after my tags, me :P)

Ah, when hubris met nemesis
Characters from Asterix? 🙂
Anyway, somebody disabled captcha images, so the blame for the double posting lies with them, not me (or am I starting to think like Monbiot?)

. . . . and why every time there is a schism in their ranks a whole rash of new jargon and taboos arises.
. . . I can’t quite remember if the original source was Miss Manners, Jilly Cooper, Kate Fox, or someone else, but I’m reminded of the observation to the effect that lowest middle class fanatic attention to particular declarations of etiquette are the way that the newest arrivals hope they can cut off the one’s who follow them . . . .

Who on earth is the topless retard tearing up “Retarded.”
Note to self: In case of ban, use “Retread” as an alternative.

We should take these people to task and play them at their own game.
Have you ever met a white person? I mean, a genuine WHITE person? I haven’t. White is the colour of snow in neutral light. It’s the colour of bleached paper. It is the absence of any tint whatsoever.
I’m Anglo/Irish/whatever ethnicity but looking at my hand now in the dead of winter I would describe the colour as somewhere around Pantone 91-ish.
Anyone calls me white from here on in I’m going to be deeply insulted.
So, I’m starting a movement: Pantone-ism. Anyone refers to anyone with an incorrect Pantone reference and I’m suing them for the racist pigs they are.