Off Topic Politics Thread

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
I Sorry I Ruined The Party said:
I don't know, really. I get your point it seems not to be logical, but language isn't always logical, I guess. The AP Style people actually tried to take "homophobia" out but the LGBT community argued to put it back in. And you can use "heterosexual" so it doesn't appear to be strongly correlated with etymology.

As far as AP style/writing goes, they obviously don't want their reporters offending people. But also, they want uniform usage so that readers (especially younger ones) won't get confused by words whose tone and definition aren't familiar to them. So if one word is much more common than the other, that's the one they will have you use. And in the guidelines it says that "gay is PREFERRED over "homosexual" so it's not a total ban.

As far as casual usage, I think it has to do with historically "homosexual" being associated with a medical afflication. Like its a psychological disease that needs curing. And then people shortening the term to "homo" and using it derisively. It's also rather outdated. Similar to how "colo(u)red" was once the non-offensive term, but over time has become very offensive because of the era in which it was used.

Older people who have used the word their whole lives or maybe sheltered people from rural areas who don't run into gay people often (fewer and fewer nowadays) still use it. I don't think it makes people that mad, they just might get politely corrected. If you aren't in that group, then it probably makes people wary about why you chose to use a term that hasn't been popular in 30 years.

I guess it's in that zone where it isn't inherently offensive so much as strange. People might be taken aback, but they will try to gauge your intent. As opposed to some other words where no one would possibly use it unless trying to cause offense. Like, there's no way that could have been a mistake and it's an instant fight starter.
Click to expand...

I get your point. Then again, I might want to be in a "gay" or happy mood without misleading people into thinking that I'm homosexual. I can understand people preferring to use certain terms, it's the moral outrage against even well-meaning faux pas which bemuses me. (Thinking of Cumberbatch here). Goodness knows what the heterosexual squaddies of the Gordon Highlanders made of the Gay Gordons.

It also gets confusing, and even intimidating to non-gays in the same way we have to get continuous updates on the current acceptable term for native Americans (or is that now injuns?) and inhabitants of Greenland and Northern Canada (I won't even try).
What is the most up-to-date, accepted term for the black population of the US? Is it African-American and does this also apply to white South Africans who become US citizens?

I know I'm being a tad facetious, and I'm not aiming any of this at your eminently sensible and considered post. Obviously there should be total non-acceptance of egregious terms such as the "N" word, or A*** Bandit" but the ever-changing accepted terminology phenomenon is a minefield which I believe does no favours to those who are actually seeking better understanding and equality, and addressing more urgent issues.
 
breconsaint said:
I get your point. Then again, I might want to be in a "gay" or happy mood without misleading people into thinking that I'm homosexual. I can understand people preferring to use certain terms, it's the moral outrage against even well-meaning faux pas which bemuses me. (Thinking of Cumberbatch here). Goodness knows what the heterosexual squaddies of the Gordon Highlanders made of the Gay Gordons.

It also gets confusing, and even intimidating to non-gays in the same way we have to get continuous updates on the current acceptable term for native Americans (or is that now injuns?) and inhabitants of Greenland and Northern Canada (I won't even try).
What is the most up-to-date, accepted term for the black population of the US? Is it African-American and does this also apply to white South Africans who become US citizens?

I know I'm being a tad facetious, and I'm not aiming any of this at your eminently sensible and considered post. Obviously there should be total non-acceptance of egregious terms such as the "N" word, or A*** Bandit" but the ever-changing accepted terminology phenomenon is a minefield which I believe does no favours to those who are actually seeking better understanding and equality, and addressing more urgent issues.
Click to expand...

And of course as I have said before, if I call someone Chav or chavvy up here it will go down pretty normally as it means "mate" and always has but if I said it somewhere else then it might end up with me getting one in the mush for being a cheeky little monkey.......that is if I am allowed to describe myself as a monkey or anyone else is.

Yes I am being cheeky but you get what I mean.
 
breconsaint said:
I get your point. Then again, I might want to be in a "gay" or happy mood without misleading people into thinking that I'm homosexual. I can understand people preferring to use certain terms, it's the moral outrage against even well-meaning faux pas which bemuses me. (Thinking of Cumberbatch here). Goodness knows what the heterosexual squaddies of the Gordon Highlanders made of the Gay Gordons.

It also gets confusing, and even intimidating to non-gays in the same way we have to get continuous updates on the current acceptable term for native Americans (or is that now injuns?) and inhabitants of Greenland and Northern Canada (I won't even try).
What is the most up-to-date, accepted term for the black population of the US? Is it African-American and does this also apply to white South Africans who become US citizens?

I know I'm being a tad facetious, and I'm not aiming any of this at your eminently sensible and considered post. Obviously there should be total non-acceptance of egregious terms such as the "N" word, or A*** Bandit" but the ever-changing accepted terminology phenomenon is a minefield which I believe does no favours to those who are actually seeking better understanding and equality, and addressing more urgent issues.
Click to expand...

I agree with you on Cumberbatch. In the context of what he was saying and his track record where he's pretty outspoken on these issues, and the fact that he immediately apologized profusely on social media, that should have ended it. The backlash from some people was ridiculous. But there's always some unreasonable people out there.

In the real world, I just rarely find it to be a problem. You go to a meeting with someone you are told is called James. You meet the guy, you say "How do you do, James?" He politely tells you "I prefer Jim instead of James. Thanks." "Oh my apologies. I'll remember that." Problem solved. If the guy wants to fight you for using the wrong name, then he's a jerk and that's his problem. But if you were like "Screw you, I call you what I want!" then you're the jerk.

I don't have a whole lot of tolerance for the PC police. But I dislike equally the "anti-PC" people who are always whining about "being told what's proper." You can call people what you like. They don't have to like it.

Reasonable people work it out. Sometimes you make a terrible faux-pas and have to dig your way out of it. Sometimes people jump on you when it's unwarranted and then they get to know you and realize they got it wrong and you just made a mistake.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ImpSaint
Qwerty said:
Amused by pastor at the Republican National Congress praying for the defeat of the "Liberal Democratic party" just now. They're coming for you DTLW.
Click to expand...

The irony also being that it is the religious right who are the most vocal anti-Trump contingent in the GOP.

Also, the delegate Ken Cuccinelli who you have probably seen or will see complaining about Trump is hilarious. He ran for Governor in a state where he captured the GOP nomination on the strength of the extreme right. By doing so, somehow the Republicans managed to lose to a man who is very closely associated with the Clintons where they otherwise would have won by a large margin. So if Trump ever had a kindred spirit, it should be Cuccinelli.
 
breconsaint said:
I get your point. Then again, I might want to be in a "gay" or happy mood without misleading people into thinking that I'm homosexual. I can understand people preferring to use certain terms, it's the moral outrage against even well-meaning faux pas which bemuses me. (Thinking of Cumberbatch here). Goodness knows what the heterosexual squaddies of the Gordon Highlanders made of the Gay Gordons.

It also gets confusing, and even intimidating to non-gays in the same way we have to get continuous updates on the current acceptable term for native Americans (or is that now injuns?) and inhabitants of Greenland and Northern Canada (I won't even try).
What is the most up-to-date, accepted term for the black population of the US? Is it African-American and does this also apply to white South Africans who become US citizens?

I know I'm being a tad facetious, and I'm not aiming any of this at your eminently sensible and considered post. Obviously there should be total non-acceptance of egregious terms such as the "N" word, or A*** Bandit" but the ever-changing accepted terminology phenomenon is a minefield which I believe does no favours to those who are actually seeking better understanding and equality, and addressing more urgent issues.
Click to expand...


I think anyone who deliberately uses pejorative terms with the intention of causing offence should expect to be held to account. But if you accidentally cause offence with no intention to do so, then the problem probably lies with the person who has chosen to take offence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Schrodinger's Cat
- Doing The Lambert Walk said:
You must log in or register to see media

You must log in or register to see media
Click to expand...

I have no problem with that. I want my leader to be able to make those kinds of decisions. Of course I would also hope they'd add "However, short of some kind of alien invasion or computers launching an attack on mankind where the fate of the entire human race depends on it, I can't anticipate the situation will ever come up."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Whiteley Saint and davecg69
- Doing The Lambert Walk said:
YouGov have polled Labour members ahead of the upcoming leadership election.

Corbyn - 54%
Eagle - 25%
Smith - 14%
Click to expand...

Interesting times ahead it seems for this party. Is it feasible that a new leader can unite the party or is it time for the party to split in two? History teaches us that nothing is forever, so perhaps now it the time for the party to divide like the left in Spain where there is the moderate PSOE and the much more left wing Podemos and United Left!!

However, the difference between the UK and Spain being that the Left is nowhere near as strong as in Spain, so the outcome regardless of a break up or not, is an indefinite Conservative Government for the next 20 or 30 years and further beyond that, a situation akin to the Social Democrats in Sweden who were in power for 50 or 60 years!!!!
 
Last edited:
I Sorry I Ruined The Party said:
I have no problem with that. I want my leader to be able to make those kinds of decisions. Of course I would also hope they'd add "However, short of some kind of alien invasion or computers launching an attack on mankind where the fate of the entire human race depends on it, I can't anticipate the situation will ever come up."
Click to expand...
Well that's the thing, Theresa sounds pretty trigger happy/confident with her answer, when could it be justified in her eyes? Although I'm sure it will never be used in my lifetime.
 
Jaidi said:
Well that's the thing, Theresa sounds pretty trigger happy/confident with her answer, when could it be justified in her eyes? Although I'm sure it will never be used in my lifetime.
Click to expand...

Depends how old you are, maybe?
I can envisage, sometime in the future, someone like Trump, hitting back at terrorism, in the name of Islam, by launching a strategic nuclear strike into the middle of the Islamic territories. I really do fear for the future of my grandchildren.
 
St Badger said:
Depends how old you are, maybe?
I can envisage, sometime in the future, someone like Trump, hitting back at terrorism, in the name of Islam, by launching a strategic nuclear strike into the middle of the Islamic territories. I really do fear for the future of my grandchildren.
Click to expand...
23. Although with people who would press the button seemingly with no hesitation that changes things drastically. I just can't see it happening any time soon. Remember not too long ago everyone thought North Korea was going to do something drastic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back