American is now offensive
- Thread starter LDB
- Start date
http://heavy.com/news/2015/07/bias-...ark-huddleston-unh-american-rich-elderly-old/
Yep, the Trumpster 'went off' on his twitter page about this.
Yep, the Trumpster 'went off' on his twitter page about this.
Actually, Trump was spot on in this case. The authors aren't so much students as they are activist students and the faculty which comprises the Faculty Advisory Council for Community, Equity and Diversity, of the Office of Community, Equity and Diversity, College of Humanities. The Advisory Council includes the student body president and vice-president, and faculty including the Educational Program Coordinator, Women's Studies, Women's Commission Co-Chair, Educational Program Coordinator, Connect, People of Color Commission Co-Chair, Director, MUB/Student Activities, GLBT Commission Co-Chair, Staff Psychologist, Counseling Center, GLBT Commission Co-Chair, Associate Professor, Philosophy, Information Technologist, PAT Council Representative, GLBT Commission Director.
The authors are, for lack of a better term, "acceptance activists" who argue that everyone should be accepted and embraced as perfectly normal regardless of how ridiculously abnormal they may be. The authors never said the Bias-Free Language Guide was mean to promote discussion. Guidebooks in academia are never about promoting discussion, they're about protocols. They say the Style Guide “is not a means to censor but rather to create dialogues of inclusion where all of us feel comfortable and welcomed,” however if you fail to adhere to the Guide you risk swift correction and even rebuke or condemnation.
From the Office of Community, Equity and Diversity, College of Humanities:
Despite what they say to the contrary, Politically Correct speech is de facto censoring, as it censors speech and thought. It's part of training people to think a certain way. If you notice, all of the words and phrases which are problematic in the Guide are words and phrases that could be construed, by somebody somewhere, as being offensive in some way, regardless of how ridiculous it is. No matter how remote the possibility that something might be offensive or exclusionary or whatever, any and all evidence of its remnants must be scrubbed from the lexicon.
I think it's hilariously ridiculous that "homosexual" is offensive, and should be replaced with "same gender loving,". which is what "homosexual" means (homo- same, sexual-.sexual relations) particularly when the Guide states that there is no actual gender (therefor "same gender" is an impossibility). But I digress.
The guide also states that the notion of race is “a social construct that was designed to maintain slavery,” therefore any term relating to race is out. Caucasian becomes European-American (despite the fact that most Caucasians are not from or in, nor have they ever visited the Americas).
The authors are, for lack of a better term, "acceptance activists" who argue that everyone should be accepted and embraced as perfectly normal regardless of how ridiculously abnormal they may be. The authors never said the Bias-Free Language Guide was mean to promote discussion. Guidebooks in academia are never about promoting discussion, they're about protocols. They say the Style Guide “is not a means to censor but rather to create dialogues of inclusion where all of us feel comfortable and welcomed,” however if you fail to adhere to the Guide you risk swift correction and even rebuke or condemnation.
From the Office of Community, Equity and Diversity, College of Humanities:
Despite what they say to the contrary, Politically Correct speech is de facto censoring, as it censors speech and thought. It's part of training people to think a certain way. If you notice, all of the words and phrases which are problematic in the Guide are words and phrases that could be construed, by somebody somewhere, as being offensive in some way, regardless of how ridiculous it is. No matter how remote the possibility that something might be offensive or exclusionary or whatever, any and all evidence of its remnants must be scrubbed from the lexicon.
I think it's hilariously ridiculous that "homosexual" is offensive, and should be replaced with "same gender loving,". which is what "homosexual" means (homo- same, sexual-.sexual relations) particularly when the Guide states that there is no actual gender (therefor "same gender" is an impossibility). But I digress.
The guide also states that the notion of race is “a social construct that was designed to maintain slavery,” therefore any term relating to race is out. Caucasian becomes European-American (despite the fact that most Caucasians are not from or in, nor have they ever visited the Americas).
Abbreviated version, you have a wide assortment of at least very liberal on the right end of their group nut jobs with minimal common sense pushing at minimum and forcing whenever possible their idiocy on everyone else.
You ever notice when these types are busted for their stupidity it's always sudenly, "it was meant to promote discusion". Wish I knew that one first time I said a curse word in front of my mom!
The irony is, the University of New Hampshire Bias-Free Language Guide isn't bias-free at all. It reminds me of those who demand tolerance yet have no tolerance for those unlike them. The Guide is just loaded, loaded with White-Tower Liberal bias. (And not just because the act of segregating words for evaluation as biased or bias-free cannot be anything but biased). And it will only lead to problems even when they couch it (furniture bias?) with this "starting-point" crap, as it always does. Here's how it is officially described. Note the key words and phrases... "starting point" is 'tip of the iceberg' and "think critically" academia code for 'if you're not thinking this way, then you're not thinking correctly.'
Can't use the word "healthy" because that implies there are those who are not. Notice it's "starting a conversion about word choice" rather than starting a "debate" about word choice, because there is no debate. Certainly can't have a "healthy" debate or conversation about it, as that would imply the existence of unhealthy conversations about it, and we can't have that.
The correct “ term for people healthy people without disabilities,” is “non-disabled,” which is ironic because it implies there are people who are not. Obviously, calling someone crippled (gasp) or a gimp (breathtaking gasp) is out, but so is saying “handicapped” or “physically challenged.” “Wheelchair mobile” is the proper term (even though it implies there are some who are not).
So, no healthy debates about using the biased bias-free guide as a starting point. And we can’t call it a non-disabled debate because that would exclude the non-non-disabled and that would be biased, while disabling open debate, which would be, non-healthy.
Better to just knuckle under and use your critical thinking skills to think like you're told.
It's a starting point alright, it's the start of the roadbed foundation for the road to Orwellian thinking and tyranny. It is a Politically Correct starter kit. It is Word Re-smithing 101. It's training wheels for the Little Tikes Speech Police Paddy Wagon ( a racist, ageist, statement of vertically challenged bigotry if ever there was one.)
Can't use the word "healthy" because that implies there are those who are not. Notice it's "starting a conversion about word choice" rather than starting a "debate" about word choice, because there is no debate. Certainly can't have a "healthy" debate or conversation about it, as that would imply the existence of unhealthy conversations about it, and we can't have that.
The correct “ term for people healthy people without disabilities,” is “non-disabled,” which is ironic because it implies there are people who are not. Obviously, calling someone crippled (gasp) or a gimp (breathtaking gasp) is out, but so is saying “handicapped” or “physically challenged.” “Wheelchair mobile” is the proper term (even though it implies there are some who are not).
So, no healthy debates about using the biased bias-free guide as a starting point. And we can’t call it a non-disabled debate because that would exclude the non-non-disabled and that would be biased, while disabling open debate, which would be, non-healthy.
Better to just knuckle under and use your critical thinking skills to think like you're told.
How about this f**k you, I AM an American, born in the great state of NJ. (Exit 10)
I spent a week there one day!
Must have been gardening.
I lived in New Jersey for 2 years (Exit 8). Hated every minute of it. There are more cars than people there, and they're all on the road. You can be out in the boonies and it's still bumper-to-bumper traffic. Lived in Howell Township for one year, then in an apartment on the beach on Manasquan for a year. The Manasquan Beach is not quite like the beaches in South Florida where I once lived. I don't think they do it as much anymore, but in the early 80s the big ships would sail out of New York, get 20 miles or so off shore, then dump their garbage, which washed up on the beaches in central Jersey. Just lovely.
Maybe, but in this case, they said that up front, on the guide - the one that was around for 2 years before a blogger made fun of it. Then the University President denounced it, and that's that's when the 'learning' part kicked in. [I'd have made fun of it too, the substitutions for perfectly good words are ridiculous]
Uni [more Briticisms, lol] is when students learn to be adults, and some need more educating than others, but most will figure out that their ideas of utopia don't [and can't] exist in the real world.