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.
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.
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.
Got a little shudder down my spine watching that today. Quickly turned the tv off & went outside. Good save.
YouGov have polled Labour members ahead of the upcoming leadership election. Corbyn - 54% Eagle - 25% Smith - 14%
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.
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.
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."
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!!!!
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.
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.
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.
That's what I said. Unfortunately there are different rules for the real world than there are for the PC obsessed metros.
