DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum So ... the Owner Can't be Called the Owner?

Well, lets just say the 70's and 80's I grew up in was a bit different than the one you grew up in...I was always very small then...I didn't grow past 5 feet until I was 16. Heck I weighed maybe 70 pounds going into High School. And I moved around allot, so I was always the new kid. One that had emotional issues from his parents divorce and could not always hide it....That combination meant I experienced far more than my share of schoolyard silliness and bullying. For me...bullying was the norm.

The biggest differences between then and today...is that we were taught to stand up for ourselves, taught to ignore insults, and most of the bullying was face to face and not done behind a cowardice anonymity of some computer screen. Give me my time and bullies everytime over this...

Today our kids are the ones punished if they stand up for themselves...they are taught that "words hurt" and that they should feel victimized. And the internet has led to a host of bullying tactics we couldn't and wouldn't ever have dreamed of doing to another person in our time...

I see your point, but you are speaking to a generality of PC culture - not this specific instance.

This specific instance, its stoop-id.

In this case, if I say "owner" when referring to Dan Gilbert, I won't care. Anyone reading or hearing that will know what I mean. If I remember to call him the "team governor", then I'll use it. I'm not going to spend a lot of mental energy either way. If I said "owner" around a person that objected to it, I'd probably laugh at them and ask how perfect their life is that they have time to worry about what billionaires are being called nowadays.

If you're asking about other terms that the PC police have banned, that depends on the term. I think we've all changed a bit over the past 10-25 years. There are words we no longer use, even in jokes. Anything that's mostly universally agreed upon, I won't use (not that I'd still want to use it). If it's a term most still use but .01% have a problem with it, meh.

I've watched the "Hate Speech Isn't Real - Change My Mind" video. Interesting stuff. It's good to see some people have a calm debate on the subject (instead of one side attempting to ban/censor people or the other side whining/complaining to no end).

I graduated high school in the 70's. So no, we didn't grow up in a different time.

I think bullies are bullies no matter where you find them. My parents were also divorced. I stood up for a lot of kids that were bullied in my school that simply couldn't protect themselves. I wouldn't say that I was the toughest guy at my school or anything, but I would say that most bullies are weak and use being a bully as a way of compensating for something they lack.

If anyone who may pose a real threat stands up to them, they in most cases will back down. When they don't, you have to resort to whatever means are necessary.

I don't think that trying to stop bullying in schools is a bad thing. But words do hurt. If they didn't there would be very few bullies. It's always been that way. Most fights start out over words.

I always taught my child to stand up for herself. To never let anyone push her around. She was never raised to be a "victim".

I don't see how this really is an indictment of either side. We should still expect some common decency between people through civil discourse. That is something that predates the 50's, 60's and 70's. Words like rude, cruel, bully and many more have actual definitions for what those words mean. Those definitions were written long before our time. There is a certain standard of conduct we should expect from everyone.

Those are character flaws. I'm very much one who will meet anyone in a debate at their own level. If they wish to be an arse, I can and will meet them head to head on that level. If they wish to have a civil debate, such as we are doing, I am happy to converse on that level as well.

It's all relative. But mean is mean. That hasn't changed over time. Rude is rude and acting the part of a bully will always be the same. None of that has changed during the course of our lifetime except to the extremes on both directions. I don't consider either extreme to be an example of what America really is. It's just the noise we hear the most often.

I think part of the problem is that we have become somewhat numb to the really rude and obnoxious behavior while at the same time becoming incredibly sensitive to trigger words..

I can't wait for the conversation that goes:

Person 1: "This team is never going to be any good, it's because we have a [expletive], lazy [expletive] moron, stupid [expletive], [expletive] fascist, racist [expletive], [expletive] tightwad for an owner."

Person 2: "OMG, did you just use the word 'owner'?"

Rut Row Raggy

I agree with most of what you said...But I have to disagree on one point...Words do NOT hurt. The power we give words is what hurts. You can call me the most vile names ever devised and then some...But unless I put credence to them, which is MY decision, those words are powerless and have zero effect.

We see this every single day. On this board, or an just about any instance with an argument. You might have the most eloquent, factual, and persuasive argument ever crafted by man. But as we see in most political discussions...LOL....the other side ignores those words, they give them no power, and nobody has a change of opinion.

Words only have the power we personally apply to them.

Didn't read all the comments.. but even as a Black man.. this is dumb and over the top.

We're not that far apart in our opinions. With one main difference it seems.

Words have a definition, a meaning. In order to follow your logic, one would have to ignore the very meaning of words itself in order to say they hold no power. Most people, IMO, have a hard time simply ignoring the very definition of what words actually mean.

Not everybody hears Charlie Browns teacher when others speak.

At a very high level, this is factually accurate but on a much more human level, it is impractical. Human beings are emotional creatures, we have emotions that we can't always control 100% like you suggest. I agree that we largely control how we allow language to affect us but it's often not a conscious decision... the nature of the verbal attack, the level of trust and respect we have for the person making the attack, our own emotional state at the time, all play into how much words can affect us.

I would have to say you make a very valid point. It often times depends on who is saying the words as it applies to the impact those words have.

There's no doubt that some words needed to go. Just in my life of rec league hockey, the f-word used as a slur against gay people was an absolute staple of trash talking and chirping. It's an ugly word that needed to go. I don't think it means you hate gay people if you use it, as the hockey playing community has really done a great job the last few decades of welcoming anyone (their anyone can play initiative has done really well imo). 5 years ago I played in a tournament where there happened to be an all gay team (i didn't know it was a thing, because I have known many hockey players over the years who were gay and just played anywhere) but we were told right before the game that you are gone if you drop any slurs.

Now, I have heard from some refs that at any level, the use of a gay slur is an automatic ejection, as it would be if you used a racial slur.

That kind of PC culture I can get behind. It's unnecessary and kind of unoriginal to get under peoples' skin at this point.

This owner thing is hilarious though. Funny enough that you bring up Dan Gilbert, because I remember Michael Wilbon trying to paint the picture of him as a slave owner when Lebron left the Cavs for Miami. It's a narrative that he so badly wanted, but didn't really fit. It was as if he should have just not had any thoughts on the matter when Lebron had the tv show, and basically ghosted his old team during the entire process. The narrative doesn't fit, but they will push it, because it polarizes the sports entertainment community on all sides.

I can get behind the fact that we are not 100% in control of our emotions...in fact it could be argued we have no control over our emotions... But how we process and react to those emotions is what is important. And I certainly do not agree with teaching victimization as a means to deal with emotions. In fact, I would say PC culture magnifies those emotions and very quickly every slightest thing is overblown to gargantuan proportions...good and bad.

We can all agree that bad things are bad. I think we can all agree that we would prefer people to not do bad things...The problem is that bad things will happen. Accidentally, Intentionally, Unintentionally, by people, by nature....it doesn't matter how. Bad things are going to happen. PC Culture is not the answer as to how to deal with bad things. In fact it gives MORE POWER to the bad thing...It legitimizes the bad thing.

Now I will be PC for a moment here so the auto-censors don't mess with the post and so I can make a point.

The "N"-Word. Does anyone truly believe that this word was the first and only word to denigrate the black race? I mean the earliest civilization was about 12000 years ago. Do we really think there haven't been other words used? But we don't use many of those words anymore do we??? Why? Well some of the words changed over time. Some of the words were forgotten. Some new words may have taken their place. Now I don't have anything factual to back it up, but in looking at these cultures...I would venture to guess that not many of these words, if any, were actually banned. And now...if we were to reprise some of these words...they would have little to no power behind them...How would any of you react if I called you a Zounderkite? Or maybe a Rantallion???

First I would say you would be confused....Then after Googling the words, you would probably brush it off...But at one time, people were seriously offended by these terms...The point is...they no longer are...They do not carry the same power as they once did. Isn't it the same word??? We, as people, gave and eliminated the power of these words...

I say again...WORDS DO NOT HURT...it is the power we give the words and the way we process and act upon those words which hurts. And PC Culture only empowers the bad things we wanted to avoid in the first place.

I do not see one good side to PC Culture. It weakens us emotionally, It controls us...It legitimizes a bad word instead of minimizing it. And it gives power to an external force and takes power away from us. It is a FACADE of good manners and politeness. It has zero substance.

JMO

You make a logical argument and it's obvious you are not changing your mind on this at all. I won't even argue other than to say that while you make some great points, it is my belief that you are underestimating the power of words, especially on folks who are not members of the mainstream.

I have no idea why anyone would want to call other people names like retard, the C-word for women, and the N-word. And then get upset about having to be politically correct.

Well I understand your point. And I certainly don't want to call people these names. I am not out to try and offend people. Most people are not out to try and offend people.

I do not dismiss the power of words...I only recognize where that power comes from. It comes from within. Whether it is good and inspiring or bad and demeaning...It is I who gives the power and credence to those words...NOT the one who presented them. Just as you will choose the power with which to take my words...

I have agreed w/most of your points. You have made a lot of very good ones throughout the thread. But Pete, you and I are in the group that has the most power. Negative labels on folks w/less social status go beyond a mean word and often set social policies.

There were signs like "No N...... Allowed." "Colored water fountain." Sayings like "A woman's place is in the home." Questions like "Are you retarded? "He rides the short bus."

These words and phrases were not just politically incorrect, but they set standards as to how people were treated. That treatment almost always involved exploiting and degrading groups of people.

I do agree that a lot of the PC stuff has gone much too far. The the NBA decision that began this thread is an example of that. I'm not debating you on that or many of your other points. I just think it is wise to look at the big picture and how things affect others rather than just ourselves.

In a way...I would say you just illustrated the point I have been trying to make. As you are taking other attributes outside of the words themselves when placing power upon the words. We all will give power to the words of someone close to us rather some stranger acting stupidly. This is a conscious decision...isn't it??? So in the end...it is STILL the power we give.

Did those signs disappear before or after we banned the word??? We passed laws that we could no longer segregate and those signs disappeared...(Now we have a generation who thinks it a good idea to bring them back....and it isn't the white supremacists...or maybe they want to as well...)

We once railed against banning and burning books. But we are ok with doing it to the English Language??? We do not have to use these words...but they exist. And because they exist we need to acknowledge and learn how to deal with them. And that means how to use (which is...they really shouldn't) But most importantly, how we let them affect us...

Why do we insist on giving these words more power? The more power we give them, the longer they will be around. We have built a generation who do not know how to deal with negative things...Because our solution was to isolate them from it. Denying the word exists (which is essentially the goal of banning the word) does not prepare anyone with how to deal with it.

In the end we can only control ourselves...We need to teach politeness and manners as a means of how to treat others...But we also need to teach how to deal with negativity. PC Culture does not do that. It tries to isolate people from it. It tries to deny it exists...So what happens when that illusion is crushed and the words do exist...We get the hyper sensitivity that we see today.

And I am not calling you out...I just want a logical discussion about the word "retarded". Because it will illustrate my point about the power we personally give words. It comes from the Latin retardare. It means to make slow, delay, keep back, or hinder. We use it when talking about the spark timing of an automobile (and people take offense to that). It was first used medically in 1895. It was a PC move to keep people from using terms like feeble minded, idiot, moron, simpleton. It was a "neutral" term. It was a medical term. It was not derogatory in any way. So what happened?

WE as people took this neutral term and made it derogatory. So WE changed that. WE then decided that retardation was a negative, demeaning term and replaced it in another PC move with mentally handicapped. Then That was not good enough and in 2010, Barack Obama signed into Federal Law that the words "mental retardation", and all of its forms, be stricken from all Federal documents and be replaced with "Intellectual Disability". These are documents using the term in its neutral purpose...

So, when will Intellectual Disability be stricken???

The point being is that WE placed this power upon the words and when we banned it...and replaced it with a neutral word...WE placed power upon those words (or created new ones to demean). It is a cycle that is neverending with the current PC means of dealing with it. New words will always be turned or new words will be created to demean. Why don't we teach people how to deal with the word in the first place.

Banning the word DOES NOTHING.

Sorry if I am coming off as combative....I am just in an arguing kind of mood lately...LMAO!!!! This is a good a subject as any....probably because PC just hits me in the right spot...(maybe I give it too much power...;) )

I sort of agree with what you're saying, but you can't ignore the context and intent of what's being said when people use "choice words". And I think that's the real problem behind the words: That people are trying to use those words to demean. I think that's were some people are coming from, in that you just can't "ignore" what is being said, as if words have no real meaning. Nobody is that robotic.

But I get where you're coming from as well, where people are trying to make words go away, as if that will solve the issue of people using words to demean. If someone uses the word "retarded" as an insult, then simply saying it's nicer to call someone "disabled" instead will only go so far. How long until the word "disabled" is considered an insult, and we have to update our list of "inappropriate" words. I mean, we're already seeing this with Indians Native Americans Western Hemispherical Indigenous Persons.

It seems like it's almost the same thing with gun control. They want to ban the means, rather than the source. "If we just take away guns, then it'll stop the violence." Meanwhile, there's an English Football forum I visit frequently, and they have a thread up about how knife attacks have been out of control and they need to do something like arrest anyone in possession of a knife.

Seems like we should be blaming the people behind the problems, rather than the tools of their destruction.

Actually, Excel...I don't feel I am ignoring context and intent...I am absolutely depending upon them as they, as well as who, help me decide the power I want to give the the words....But PC essentially says that you don't have the power to do that. You don't get to decide how bad the words are....or how you should feel about and react to them.

But my biggest beef with PC is the use of it as a means to control people...For me, it is about the taking of control and power away from the individual...Emotionally as well as Physically (our actions and our language).

I'll simply expound what Vers said. When you belong to a race or class that's already maginalized, discriminated against or unfairly treated, there is a history of how those words have been used to bolster that treatment or status. At that point, it's no longer, "just a word".

I'm not in one of those groups. As such words really don't have the impact on me that they do some others. But it's quite easy for me to understand why words have a much greater impact on others of certain races, females and people with disabilities than it would someone like myself.

I get exactly where your coming from Pete. I myself have never been PC and at my age I don't see myself changing all that much. I have no problem calling myself a redneck or a cracker because I don't see those as negative words. I see no problem with the "N" word if it's used between friends to be funny and not to be mean. (Completly different story if it's meant as a insult however) I agree 100 percent that the power we give to words makes all the difference, not the words themselves.

Well, you're actually not a very good example.



While you certainly qualify as a redneck, you're the perfect example of what I speak of in the difference between not being politically and just plain being an azz hole.

Some people, like yourself aren't politically correct, but at the same time you don't use that as an excuse to purposefully try to hurt anyone. You don't try to weaponize speech in the name of not being politically correct. There's a big difference.

I never set a good example lol

I've enjoyed the exchanges in this thread without feeling a need to share my views- until now.

You've made some thoughtful points, but I'm going to come at this statement/sentiment from a different angle. It will be interesting to see what you might think.

In a post I made several months ago, I talked about PC, and how I treat it. I will do my best to reprise those sentiments in this post.

Instead of talking about social labels, I'd like to first draw an analogy. Then, I'll take on the subject after setting some context. I have two colleagues, both of whom are named David. One, I've known for almost 30 years. The other, about 7-8. The D I've known for 7-8 years said: "Call me Dave" the day we first met. The other D insists on David, and will 'correct' anyone who addresses him in the informal. I call each of them by the name they wish, because it's the polite and considerate thing to do.

Concerning social labels: I had a friend years ago who referred to himself as a Chicano. I have two current friends who prefer the generic Latin. I give them the same consideration I gave Reuben all those years ago.

None of my friends drop the N-bomb even when cutting up with each other, and neither do I. However, there are times when I find myself in social circles where the "N-word (with an 'a')" is freely shared... and I'm not offended. The social group in question have adopted it as an integral part of their lexicon for reasons I understand, but don't share. We can till kick it in convo; I just don't use it, even if they do.

You see- for me, it's always a personal matter. If someone wants to be referred to as LatinX, I can do the gender neutral thing. I have friends who call themselves Queer, and I can roll with that. Others want to be called gay or other such terms. I can accommodate them all, because once again, it's the considerate thing to do for people you've met. I have two young friends who are experiencing a phase of gender fluidity, each in their own way. I simply ask "what is/are your pronoun(s)?" and go on with my life. These folks aren't simply (stereo)typical members of a demographic monolith; they are people I actually know. And they are now friends, because I afforded them that personal level of dignity.

In none of these circumstances have I felt put out/inconvenienced by their requests/preferences, and most definitely never felt as thought I was personally diminished, controlled or disempowered. Not in any way.

On the contrary, I feel that it has made me a better citizen and friend. I believe my understanding of people has been broadened/deepened, and because I accede, then (politely) ask why, their answers have given me a chance to understand a wider range of nuance concerning 'personal identity in the Social Sphere.'

As a result, I usually employ the generic PC terms here at DT because it's my personal default. Af/Am, Latin(-a,-o,-X), etc. I also usually make a point of using the term Euro-Am, because white is found in painting sets. If I do use it when typing fast, I always capitalize it, because it's being used as a proper noun.

It's the polar opposite of dismissive terms like Mick, Wop, Chink, Slope, Polack, etc... and I'm okay with it.

__________________________


I was a kid at the time when those terms were still used quite regularly, but was raised and trained by My Parents: "People of substance don't use such language."

When those names became less and less acceptable, I had no learning curve/retraining at all. Others had a rougher go at it. Some openly resented even the very first changes (like dropping the 'N-word' and terms like 'Wetbacks' from everyday casual conversation). For the most part, those changes were improvements. Entire segments of America's population no longer had to hear themselves publicly referred to in the most derogatory, dehumanizing language imaginable, as they attempted to simply go about their daily business.

And America was made better for it (at least on the surface... because for those who never had it before, 'surface' was a big improvement).

This 'new thing' is the next step in what I've always experienced. And again, it doesn't bother me in the least. Because of where I cam from and the way I was raised, I'm still a generation ahead of the expected learning curve for a man my age.

I see what's happening in the 2010's as a continuation of what started in the 1950's/60's. It's a function of Human Nature as much as it is any political movement. People want to live their lives with a modicum of dignity, even if they are folks who for some measure of luck/fate/set of societal norms find themselves outside of the mainstream.

Those who have read me regularly already know me. They know of my familial origins, dating back 180 years. They know of my profession, childhood, life-changing experiences. My views won't come as a surprise to them. Because how I see Life has been shaped by every one of these things.

I've never been totally 'mainstream' for even one day of my life.
So working with freaks, weirdos and oddballs is something I can do standing on my head (I can hear the wisecracks already). Matter of fact, some of those oddballs and outliers are smartest, sanest people I've ever known.


Just my .02
Others' mileage may vary.

The difference is you are respecting someone's wishes as to what they want to be called. This is about dictating to others what you feel they should be called.

There is a HUGE difference, and it involves control.

PC is a garbage method of controlling others to suit your desires.

I think this has been a pretty civil thread w/some fair debate w/out all the usual insults. I think valid points have been made by folks on both sides of the "debate."

I think that Political Correctness was initially championed for honorable reasons. The labeling back in the day helped set how certain groups of people were treated, which was unfairly.

I remember when I was a little kid, how often I heard phrases such as this one: "All N...... are lazy. They don't want to work." At a very young age, I comprehended how such labeling was a justification by those in charge to help suppress a minority group. It dismissed unfair hiring practices, limited housing opportunities, lack of college scholarships, etc. Thus, I think the removal of such labels was a good thing.

As w/anything, time has a way of warping the original intent and purpose of a movement or organization and things swing too far the other way. I think the "owner" mandate is one such example.

With that said, I do wonder why folks get so upset over such a thing? Who is being harmed? Does the new "word" hurt you? If so, aren't you giving that word "power?"

I've seen countless exampled of new politically correct terms come and go in the education field and beyond. Sometimes, it was hard keeping up w/them, but none ever hurt me directly or even indirectly.

I suppose I just don't quite get the outrage that some folks [not really talking about on this board] have to new politically correct terminology. I can't support people wanting to hold onto words, phrases, and labels that hurt or demean other people. Why would anyone want to call another person a retard other than to hurt that person? Why would a person choose to call an entire group of people "Wetbacks?" Why is the removal of those terms upsetting to some people?

I roll my eyes at some of the new politically correct changes, but they sure as heck don't hurt or suppress me. I never felt the need to call someone a "N.....!" I never called a woman a "C..." I was raised differently and thus I am not losing anything because I never had it in the first place.

CLem...Thank you for getting into the discussion. As always...I love reading your posts and have always respected your opinion. But I think you too have illustrated my point.

You describe 2 social situations. One where it was acceptable to use the "N-word", even if you did not. And one where it is not acceptable to use the "N-word". It is the same word in both instances. BUT you personally gave it power in the unacceptable instance. And you gave it zero or little power in the acceptable instance. Same word 2 different levels of power.

PC says you are not allowed to make that decision.

I am all for treating other with politeness. I agree 100% that "People of substance don't use such language." I disagree with the method of PC as a means to be polite and of substance.

If you don't feel controlled. Maybe you should...I honestly feel our schools should be touting George Orwell's Animal Farm and 1984 as well J.D. Sallinger's Catcher in the Rye and Hemingways Old Man and the Sea (they did when I was in school). How many of the millennials on today's college campuses do you think have read Orwell??? I would think it to be a small number...But I definitely would be interested in the answer...

Take a look at this article. Whether you are on the left or on the right. I think it describes examples of manipulation from both ideologies...

George Orwell got it right

Verse...I am not offended by a word. I am offended by actions.
I am offended at the attempt of manipulation by PC.

And those who have been labeled w/derogatory terms are offended by the outright manipulation of the dominant group.

I think it's wise to look at things from all sides rather than just one's own personal situation.

So your solution is to ban words and manipulate others??? Because that is what PC does.

I proudly contend to rail against PC...but do you see me Insulting people left and right? Do you see me intentionally trying to make people feel bad about themselves. Do you think I go about town using racial epithets just because the words exist? What makes you think I haven't looked at things from all sides?

This is the same argument as burning books. There are book with ideas and tenants I believe in. There are books that I don't agree with. There are books that are outright offensive to me. But I would NEVER suppress those books. I would NEVER burn those books. I would never try to control the ideas that someone else is exposed to regardless of how offended I am of the content. Heck, Mainstream media is a perfect example. I am truly offended and disgusted with the manipulation of mainstream media that has a politicized agenda. Not just news outlets, but entertainment as well. And I am sickened at the deliberate attempt to censor the other side...Whether you are talking about CNN or Fox News...They essentially burn books(ideas)...and then they have the gall to say they are informing you about the world you live in.

PC does not give us choices...It takes away choices and Freedoms. It is not about feelings...it is about choices. It is about censorship. It is about who has control.

I didn't say any such thing. I think you are trying to win an argument at this point. I don't want to argue. You win. I'm out.

No, that's not what PC does. You can use any words you like. Free speech is alive and nobody stops you from using any words you wish. But don't be surprised when the words you choose is considered a yardstick to judge your character. ( Not speaking about you but people in general.)



There's a difference between looking at things from all sides and understanding things from all sides.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that words have been "banned"? Sure, you're judged by the words you choose. People can see your motives based on the words you choose.

But if you don't believe that people try to use the excuse that, "I'm just not PC", just as a way to attack, demean and insult people I don't think you've been paying attention.

There's a difference between "Not being PC" and using that as a catch all phrase to excuse someone for just being an azz hole is something we see all the time. It's a built in excuse. Many saw it coming and now we are a witness to watching it.

Of course words have been banned...we have to type "N-word" because we cannot type the actual word without being censored and facing reprisal regardless of the context it is used. How is that not considered being banned???

People are being attacked and threatened because they did not use the so called "appropriate" gender term. How is this not banning words???

PC has made the decision for you...You cannot use the "N-word"....period. How is that not banning the word? How is that not a manipulation of your desire to be polite in order to control your speech?

Now let's get to the bottom of things...Do you think I am using or intend on using the "anti PC" banner as an "excuse" to insult people?? Do you think I am searching for situations to hurt peoples feelings?

Do people do it? sure... Is it crass and disgusting? yes. But as you say that is a reflection on that person. I can only control myself...(PC tries to control others...) I am only responsible for myself and my family. I am not responsible for you. I am not responsible for Verse. I am not responsible for the reprehensible KKK or Antifa Members...So if any of you "wants" to use that kind of language...so be it...as you say again...that is a reflection on them.

Now here is the big question....Is it illegal? Should it be illegal? Because you have a boatload of voting age millennials who think it is a good idea to make it so (I would argue because of PC manipulation their entire lives). If you believe in individual freedoms and individual choices...If you believe in free speech then the answer to both of those questions should be "NO" As despicable as the speech can be...we have to fight to protect it. That is the ESSENCE of American Free Speech.

We don't have to like it... We have the right to be offended by it. But we have to protect it.

There have always been consequences for your actions and speech.



I was taught the difference between can't and won't. You haven't been to the deep south lately have you? It's used all the time.



I never insinuated you did. But to be more direct, no I don't.



You see, I don't actually think we're that far apart here. I think both of us are more concerned about the extremists on both sides of this issue. I think it's fine to use PC in regards to what is seen as a normal degree of decency and respect of your fellow human beings. But those who take it to extremes are not an accurate portrayal of that.



I've never even heard of "a boatload of voting age millennials who think it is a good idea to make it so". I certainly would not advocate limiting free speech in any form. Free speech can be a great tool to help figure out who a person is very quickly and I like that option.

My dad asked me a question one time and was quite surprised by my answer. But after giving it some thought he rather liked the answer.

He asked me, "Son, why do you wear that long hair and that beard? Don't you know people will judge you based on that?"

To which I replied, "Dad, if someone is the type of person who judges you based on outward appearance, they are not the kind of people I want to know. It helps me to separate them out quickly."

AAArrrrggggghhhhh!

SAS agrees with me.

ESPN’s Stephen A. Smith says the NBA is ‘smoking crack’ - cleveland.com
https://www.cleveland.com/entertainment/...king-crack.html

CLEVELAND, Ohio – In a move some might call admirable, the NBA is moving away from the term “owner” to describe the majority shareholder of its teams.

Commissioner Adam Silver told TMZ Sports last month that the league has realized the term might be “racially” insensitive and moved away from it years ago.

But ESPN’s Stephen A. Smith isn’t having it.

“It’s my house. I own it. I don’t own you, but I own it,” Smith shouted on his radio show Monday. “The idiocy in this politically correct world we’re living in…Y’all smoking crack! Something is wrong with you people. What the hell has this world come to?”

Watch his full rant, below:

https://pbs.twimg.com/ext_tw_video_thumb...&name=small

The irony in that is that him insinuating that those who are offended by the word owner, who are primarily black, are idiots because they are smoking crack, is far more racist than the term "owner".