Posted by Crono on Sat Sep 17th at 2:34am 2005
Posted by Nickelplate on Sat Sep 17th at 4:14am 2005
You can't say "politically correct" anymore!! get with the times! the term you're so anachronoxically searching for is "Intolerance-and-offensive material-deenhancement-process-challenged-impaired"
You laugh now, but pretty soon, we'll all be trained to speak as such. I hate political correctness with the fire of ten-thousand suns. So in an effort to counter this international movement of emasculating sugar-coating, I will now spout the following:
Fat, ugly, short, retarded, stupid, Black, Indian, midget, inbred, white-trash, bastard, poor, flunked.
Those are the REAL words for things that everyone is always correcting ppl on. Never forget these words.
Nickelplate
member
2770 posts
327 snarkmarks
Registered: Nov 23rd 2004
Location: US

Occupation: Prince of Pleasure
http://www.dimebowl.com
Posted by satchmo on Sat Sep 17th at 4:26am 2005
To show you guys how much I deplore PCness, here is my version:
Lard-face, eye-sore, shrimpy, moron, idiot, n****r, drunken red-face, midget, white-trash=inbred, son of a bitch, poor=stupid+laziness, failed
Ahh, the PCness around me is getting to me. I can't even think of terrible words anymore. It has shrunken my vocabulary.
satchmo
member
2077 posts
396 snarkmarks
Registered: Nov 24th 2004
Location: Los Angeles, U.S.

Occupation: pediatrician
Posted by Crono on Sat Sep 17th at 4:50am 2005
Son of a Bitch is really a slang more than anything, I think. They don't really mean to insult your mother ... but you. So ...
On that note ... why are all the male insults directed at the person's behavior and women's insults usually relate to embellishments of their sexual prowess. Why is it funny when a Man is called a whore, but insulting to a woman? Or a slut for that matter.
Just an observation though. If they really want political correctness, they shouldn't discriminate against sexuality. Everyone should abide by the same set of insults!
Posted by Nickelplate on Sat Sep 17th at 10:37pm 2005
Crono- I'm posting from a Linux machine in my basement :nerd:
[edit] I really don't think there is any need to be MEAN to ppl, but saying things like "black," or "retarded," or "failed" should be allowed.
[edit2] Crono, how come whenever there is a Male-only organization, they say it's sexist, but whenver there is a female-only organization, its all okay. Whenever a white is proud to be white, he's a racist, but when a black is proud to be black, he is "celebratin' his heritage?"
Nickelplate
member
2770 posts
327 snarkmarks
Registered: Nov 23rd 2004
Location: US

Occupation: Prince of Pleasure
http://www.dimebowl.com
Posted by Crono on Sat Sep 17th at 10:59pm 2005
The thing I find odd is the entire idea that you're responsible for your parents (more commonly) father's discretions. It isn't as common in our neck of the woods. But ... it's still somewhat believed, even if people don't know they're doing it.
I never understood how I, for example, could be "racist", simply because I have a paler skin then some, even though, I am in fact, half Arab. It just doesn't show in my skin color.
The other thing is ... genetics can be funky. Because, if there's even one person in your collective family lines with some genetic trait that doesn't form to what everyone else is (we can use skin color as an example), that gene becomes recessive. Meaning, that at any time down the line, it could dominate at some point in a pregnancy, making the child whatever color ... characteristics (physically), whatever it may be.
It's pretty interesting actually. And, just the thought of that really flaws hatred based on race ... or any genetic trait like that. I think, the only thing you should really get pissed at someone for is their actions. I mean, even they think something radically different then you, if they're not harming anyone, what's the big deal?
It's sort of the same thing with missionaries, I never understood their thought process. They say, "You must find God" to these people that have no idea what that might even mean, and basically force them to convert. However, looking at it from a religious angle would raise the question of: do they actually believe that? If they don't, are they actually being "saved", as the missionary intended, or thinks? Because, if they are, that goes off the assumption that, you can basically fool God, which goes against the entire message of whatever they are teaching, which is usually, God is omnipotent.
It's just all one big Catch 22.
While, I believe it's a very good thing to have beliefs, (they keep you sane and they can act as something to help you through your life, something to identify with when you need it), I don't think any of this stuff was really meant literally, as it is sometimes interpreted as. It just doesn't make sense.
On top of that, a lot of people think, since that stuff doesn't happen anymore (I'm talking about biblical stuff like, parting of the sea type of descriptions) we're "fallen" from God, or whatever, and are close to the apocalypse. It just doesn't make sense, when in all actuality, those events were probably VERY embellished, or simply never happened. It's really something you have to look at, especially if you take stock in a religion, You should understand your belief system as much as possible, but as you said: that would make you responsible for your actions. And in this day, far too many people refuse to do that. I think, the only reason why is that before (say 200 years ago) you didn't always have to answer for your discretions, it didn't matter since, whatever practice might have been accepted. But now, everyone is responsible for what they do, so they try to find a way out. Be it blame or whatever.
I too find it upsetting.
I didn't mean to intermingle the two threads ... I just don't want to post in the other thread as well
Posted by Nickelplate on Sat Sep 17th at 11:09pm 2005
You seem to be grounded pretty well.
Most people blame what those missionaries did on God. That is the thing right there. you're heard or read for yourself people saying, "All the wars i history were started in the name of God" They blame PEOPLE's actions (the only thing we should get pissed of at ppl for, according to yourself.) on God. Heck, I can flip you the bird and spit in your eye in the name of God, but it doesnt mean that God told me to. Same with the missionaries.
Hernan Cortez sprinkled (baptised) babies of the Aztecs before he ran them through with his sword. He did so in the name of god, but not cause got told him to.
Fact is that ANYONe can do ANYTHING they want to in the name of God, which was heretofore the common practice. that was the way of shirking the responsibility of your greedy actions in the olden days. That's why so many ppl hate God too.
Nickelplate
member
2770 posts
327 snarkmarks
Registered: Nov 23rd 2004
Location: US

Occupation: Prince of Pleasure
http://www.dimebowl.com
Posted by Crono on Sat Sep 17th at 11:48pm 2005
"No, no, no, Your tone is all wrong..."
I know the implicit "blame" tree a lot of people like to take, but I'd imagine, the same people who would blame God based on what a specific person does simply because they say "I'm doing this in the name of God", either doesn't know what that means, or already had a pre-concieved notion of what to think on the situation and the circumstances.
Posted by Nickelplate on Sat Sep 17th at 11:56pm 2005
Well, what I'm saying is that people's desire to be right causes them to do things that rationally thinking people don't do. Things like:
- blame God for when you start a war or kill babies
- create thier own religion that suits thier needs +makes them look "intellectual" to certain crowds
- blame other people for thier shortcomings
- Kill fetuses
- kill people who will call the police on them
- become Lawyers
Nickelplate
member
2770 posts
327 snarkmarks
Registered: Nov 23rd 2004
Location: US

Occupation: Prince of Pleasure
http://www.dimebowl.com
Snarkpit v6.1.0 created this page in 0.0396 seconds.

