The Politically Correct People are Stupid Thread

[Arkhan Asylum]

I got called racist for saying the word Arab in reference to an Arab deck I made for Magic the Gathering:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_people


Not sure if any Arabs actually take offense to being called Arabs.   I am going to go out on a limb and say they do not.

I was always under the impression calling them ragheads, camel bandits, etc.  were the things that make them take offense...



Doesn't stop people from preaching and yelling about it, apparently.

Note: Person who said it was offensive/racist is not even of Arabic descent. 


Which brings me to the topic.   What is it with people being overly politically correct sissies about everything?

[NecroPhile]

At least Gypsies aren't seemingly overly politically correct.... 

[Arkhan Asylum]

At least Gypsies aren't seemingly overly politically correct.... 

Yeah they're always off gyppin' someone.

[Joe Redifer]

Were they white? White people often get offended so the person of that race doesn't have to. Say "Nigger" to a black person and have a white person standing nearby and who do you think will be more offended? Yup, the white person. I call this "white guilt" because usually they feel guilty for oppressing everyone else during the course of all history as if it was personally their fault.

Note to all: Just because you're offended doesn't mean you're right.

[Arkhan Asylum]

Nope, dude was black, which made the entire argument even more comical when he said "thats like saying its ok to call me a negro, because we call ourselves that".


Last time I checked, Negro was Black (In a few languages).

What the hell color is Arab?


The argument just doesn't work.

[turboswimbz]

By his logic you can't call:

White people - White
Jewish People - Jewish
American People - American
Arkhan - Arkhan

Because they call themselves that. 

[Arkhan Asylum]

By his logic you can't call:

White people - White
Jewish People - Jewish
American People - American
Arkhan - Arkhan

Because they call themselves that. 

Yeah basically.

I just thought it was really comical, especially because this was while I was playing a deck made of Arabs.   Abu Jafar, Ali Baba, Djinns, flying carpets, and shit.

I hate Arabs so much I play a game with them!

[turboswimbz]

By his logic you can't call:

White people - White
Jewish People - Jewish
American People - American
Arkhan - Arkhan

Because they call themselves that. 

Yeah basically.

I just thought it was really comical, especially because this was while I was playing a deck made of Arabs.   Abu Jafar, Ali Baba, Djinns, flying carpets, and shit.

I hate Arabs so much I play a game with them!

Actually if anything the name of the Cards themselves could be taken as offensive.  but I'm sure he's fine with that.

[geise]

..or saying the word Jap.

[NecroPhile]

I'm extremely racist, in that I hate the human race.  Fuck off you bunch of weenie meatsacks!

[Arkhan Asylum]

you can touch my weeny meatsack.

[VestCunt]

Political correctness used to annoy me more, but these days I try to keep my language pretty clean. Two reasons:

1) even if political incorrectness is used jokingly, it invariably feeds some idiot within earshot who really is an asshole.

2) we live in a time when mainstream media ranks women by their side-boobage, rapists are called "promising students", immigrants are stereotyped and demonized by talk radio and politicians, minorities and the poor are struggling to keep their voting rights, and gay marriage is being banned... kind of takes the "fun" out of being politically incorrect.

Obviously, one has to keep a sense of humor. There's still a big difference between being politically correct and being a self-righteous, lecturing douche. It sounds like Arkhan encountered a genuine asshole.

As far as the N word, whites have absolutely no business ever saying that fucking thing. The wounds connected to it run deep and I've seen a friend go from laughing with his buddies to throwing a brick through a white kid's car in about two seconds.

My pet peeve is people who demand plural pronoun treatment. I recently had the following exchange at a party:
Girl: "Hey, where's Christa?"
Me: "Oh, she went to the bathroom."
girl: "They."
Me: "... What?"
Girl: "They."
Me: "Who? No, just Christa went to the bathroom."
Girl: "Christa prefers to be referred to as 'they'."

[Arkhan Asylum]

Yeah.  Actual racial slurs are a pretty big no no.

But, Negro is hardly racist.  They have a united negro college fund.

It's not the United N***** College Fund.

If it were, that would be pretty hilarious, honestly.

[turboswimbz]

My pet peeve is people who demand plural pronoun treatment.

I routinely get yelled at and have people tell me they hate me when I say "NO" to request like this. 

I hate when people hypocritically force their version of TOLERANCE on you. 

[Joe Redifer]

My pet peeve is people who demand plural pronoun treatment. I recently had the following exchange at a party:
Girl: "Hey, where's Christa?"
Me: "Oh, she went to the bathroom."
girl: "They."
Me: "... What?"
Girl: "They."
Me: "Who? No, just Christa went to the bathroom."
Girl: "Christa prefers to be referred to as 'they'."

What? I've never heard of this. I would be asking "Does Christa have multiple personalities?" Or perhaps I'd say "Until Christa can demonstrate to me that she is multiple people, I will refer to her in the singular". This boggles my mind. What is the rationale of such people who want to be referred to as "they"?

[Arkhan Asylum]

What? I've never heard of this. I would be asking "Does Christa have multiple personalities?" Or perhaps I'd say "Until Christa can demonstrate to me that she is multiple people, I will refer to her in the singular". This boggles my mind. What is the rationale of such people who want to be referred to as "they"?

I've encountered it before.  There were a few grammar police in highschool that would blurt that shit out a lot.

So then when they would ask stuff like:
"When is the assignment due?"

I would be like

"They is due next week"

Sometimes I would throw in some more words like "they is be due next week".

I'm sure they are all alcoholics now.

[VestCunt]

This boggles my mind. What is the rationale of such people who want to be referred to as "they"?

Apparently they're not comfortable identifying with either gender. I wouldn't mind so much if this was the true motivation, but what bothers me is that this "they" business seems to be kind of trendy. Ten years ago I'd never heard of it, now I suddenly know a handful of people. Maybe I'm too cynical, but the users I've met seem self-obsessed. Also, they should invent a new word. The only thing more confusing than a new gender is the fucking third-person plural.

[NightWolve]

This boggles my mind. What is the rationale of such people who want to be referred to as "they"?

Apparently they're not comfortable identifying with either gender.

Oh, pfffft... I was thinking it was some sort of royal 'we' pompousness or something at first. That it's just aggressive demands for gender-neutralizing of the language makes sense now. They apparently wanna get rid of he/she usage much like waiter/waitress has to become just "server." Well, "they" should let others more qualified come up with a singular pronoun term that's more appropriate instead of just going around and incorrectly using an existing plural pronoun, then arrogantly or rudely trying to enforce its usage by heckling someone in simple conversation...

[NecroPhile]

"they" should let others more qualified come up with a singular pronoun term that's more appropriate...

The word these pompous, narcissistic chucklefucks are looking for is "it".

[Tatsujin]

they is live

[Arjak]

Not only is political correctness stupid, it's also dangerous. People enforce it because there is something they don't want people to talk about, usually an important issue.

Example: African Americans who want to be treated like royalty because of slavery, which ended OVER A HUNDRED YEARS AGO. Get the fuck over it! I'm not saying what happened was not that bad, but their attitude that we "owe" them something even now is insane. Their claims that they can't get a job or be prosperous because we're still somehow keeping them down is pure SELFISHNESS. We have all these laws that protect against discrimination, and while it still does happen sometimes, they just want more and more and more. They don't want justice. What they want is revenge.

Another example: Abortion rights. I understand abortion being used in serious cases, such as rape, but when women use it as a "get out of jail free" card to get out of a mistake or not being careful, that's called MURDER. Women make this big fuss about how they have a right to choose and we men can never understand. That's bullshit. They just don't want to have think about what they are doing seriously. They dehumanize the unborn baby, so that they don't have to own up to the fact that if they didn't want to get pregnant, they should've made sure someone was using a condom.

One more example: Gay marriage. Conservatives use the bible as a reason to keep gay couples from getting married. Well, I'm a Christian and I don't give a shit about what they say. Last time I checked, we didn't live in a theocracy. We need to stop worrying about what a group of people say a book written thousands of years ago hints at, and just let people be happy. These people also look on homosexuality as some kind of evil. Here's my view: God made everyone and loves them. Homosexuals don't decide to be that way, they just are. THEREFORE: God made homosexuals and loves them.

Instead of just saying "Enough!", the U.S.A. has allowed political correctness to prevent people from solving important issues logically and effectively. We try to bury our problems in the backyard and hope they go away. This is not what this country I love is supposed to be about. The sad truth though, is that we've allowed this to happen through complacency.

P.S. Both political parties can go to hell. Neither group cares about people. They just want to get their collective way.

[Arkhan Asylum]

My stance on gays is

"I don't care what the fuck they do, as long as it's not me."

[bob]

Just because i want to play along...

retards

[Joe Redifer]

Conservatives use the bible as a reason to keep gay couples from getting married.

That's a really stupid thing for them to do. The Bible is all over the map regarding marriage. King Solomon had 700 wives, for example. And we all know that Deuteronomy says that if you rape a woman, you marry her. Not really something to use to promote values in marriage.  But of course people cherry-pick what they want from it since they don't really believe in the whole thing.

[RoyVegas]

people cherry-pick what they want from it

The absolute truth about a majority of religious people.

[Bardoly]

Conservatives use the bible as a reason to keep gay couples from getting married.

That's a really stupid thing for them to do. The Bible is all over the map regarding marriage. King Solomon had 700 wives, for example. And we all know that Deuteronomy says that if you rape a woman, you marry her. Not really something to use to promote values in marriage.  But of course people cherry-pick what they want from it since they don't really believe in the whole thing.

Ya' gotta love the stereotyping going on in these statements.


Point 1:  Conservatives may use the Bible in addition to thousands of years of history and established tradition to support the idea of 'marriage' being for heterosexual couples only.  Most conservatives are not opposed to a different word being used for homosexual couples (i.e. civil unions or some other word).  It is not a movement to 'keep gay couples from getting married', rather it is a movement to preserve 'marriage' as what it has always been.  'Marriage' has always been defined (in brief) as a recognized union between a man and a woman.  Just because someone wants to redefine the word to 'a recognized union between 2 people', and then further down the road, 'a recognized union between a person and another entity (i.e. another human, a dog, a horse, etc...)' doesn't mean that this redefining of the word is a correct thing to do.  Why must people redefine words to fit what they want?  Why not just create a new word?  Why use George Orwell's 'Newspeak'?  Why must the enforcers of tolerancy be so intolerant?


Point 2:  The Bible is NOT all over the map regarding marriage.  It has always promoted one-man with one-woman for life.  It does include a lot of history which includes people who did not follow this principle, for example, Solomon, but just because a book records some action, does not mean that it endorses that same action.  That would be like saying that your 6th grade history book endorses genocide simply because it give a history example of such.

[tggodfrey]

I cant stand how people want to focus on gay marriage and other foolish issues.  Why not focus on "real" problems.  

[NecroPhile]

Just because someone wants to redefine the word to 'a recognized union between 2 people', and then further down the road, 'a recognized union between a person and another entity (i.e. another human, a dog, a horse, etc...)'

I always giggle at this 'slippery slope' horseshit.  Gay marriage is still two consenting adults, whereas that other foolishness is not.

Besides, you're trying to protect a fucking word, a word that means jack shit to most people nowadays.  With today's drive thru weddings, annulments, and quickie divorces, there's no such thing as 'sanctity of marriage'.

[VestCunt]

Most conservatives are not opposed to a different word being used for homosexual couples (i.e. civil unions or some other word).  

They sure are opposed to giving gays the same rights.

rather it is a movement to preserve 'marriage' as what it has always been.  

Marriage isn't some static "institution". It's changed and expanded significantly to include more couples and give women equal footing. And don't give me this traditional bullshit. Historically, marriage is a rigid, segregated, sexist, patriarchal institution, but none of you DOMA supporters seem to remember that.

[Emerald Rocker]

marriage (super oldschool): a man and a woman, and maybe another woman, and maybe another woman, enter into a contract to remain together.  To the man, the duration is "for life".  To the women, the duration is "for eternity".  When the man dies, the woman is either expected to remain single or throw herself on the funeral pyre.  Depends on the culture.

marriage (kinda oldschool): a man and a woman enter into a contract to remain together for life.  To the man, the duration is "for life".  To the woman, the duration is "for eternity".  When the man dies, the woman is either expected to remain single or throw herself on the funeral pyre.  Depends on the culture.

marriage ("enlightened" era): a consenting man and a consenting woman enter into a contract to remain together for life.  Kings can get out of it by declaring the marriage a product of witchcraft and/or having the wife beheaded on charges of adultery, although such shenanigans generally elicit a "tsk tsk" from the proles.

marriage (modern Western): a consenting man and a consenting woman enter into a contract to remain together, unless they later decide not to be together anymore.  No one has to die or remain single.

So yeah, marriage has changed a lot, but there's a common piece that has been preserved forever: "man and woman".

Anyway, this debate isn't entirely about rights.  Partly, yes, but not totally.  If it were entirely about rights, then a term like "civil union" would be acceptable as long as it had the same perks (tax implications, next of kin laws, legal right to make life-ending decisions, etc) as marriage.

A lot of same-sex marriage opposers are saying some offensive stuff.  But listen to what many same-sex marriage supporters say -- "marriage is already jacked to hell" -- "marriage is a bigoted, patriarchal institution" -- "it's no big deal, it's just a word".  The word is being redefined by people who either don't care about or outright dislike the underlying concept.  Why?  Because when you change language, you change the worldview of future generations.  Those who support redefinition become the new establishment.

In other words, it's politics.  As someone who cares about language and thinks we should aspire towards making language more specific instead of more vague, "politics" isn't a compelling reason for change.  Men and women are fundamentally different; the concept of these two joining for life is a powerful one, and worth linguistic preservation.

I don't think we're necessarily in danger of losing that meaning.  After all, same-sex marriage is already legal in some states and people still think of "man and woman" when they hear the word.  And emotionally, I can't help but be moved by the stories of same-sex couples that got married because they appreciate the cultural significance and wanted to be part of that.  But in the national debate, I identify far more with Bardoly's sentiments than with the sentiments of people who speak with disdain or disregard.

As for DOMA, I think that law is pretty messed-up.  In some regards it enforces state autonomy (one state not required to recognize a marriage from another state), but in other regards it hinders state autonomy (marriages not being federally recognized, even though they're recognized by the state).  With that kind of inconsistency, I can't imagine that the thing could possibly be upheld in total.  It certainly shouldn't be.

[rag-time4]

Arkhan, are you playing "Army of Allah" in your Arab deck?

Interesting conversation going on. This gay marriage issue is certainly buzzing right now. I agree with Arjak's point that we should let people pursue happiness. However, I think the best way to do that is to abolish the phony marriage license scam and get government out of marriage completely. Did Thomas Jefferson need a government license to get married?

[VestCunt]

A lot of same-sex marriage opposers are saying some offensive stuff.  But listen to what many same-sex marriage supporters say -- "marriage is already jacked to hell" -- "marriage is a bigoted, patriarchal institution" -- "it's no big deal, it's just a word".  The word is being redefined by people who either don't care about or outright dislike the underlying concept.  

No one is trying to "redefine" marriage, it's something they aspire to join. The notion that some morally-bankrupt horde of progressives is trying to flush our culture down the toilet is absurd.  Stop it. Everyone likes the concept of marriage. There have been historical blemishes, but it's getting better.

Why?  Because when you change language, you change the worldview of future generations.  Those who support redefinition become the new establishment.
...
In other words, it's politics.

This is NOT a power grab. This is about people affirming loving, committed relationships like everyone else. No one chooses who they love.

Men and women are fundamentally different; the concept of these two joining for life is a powerful one, and worth linguistic preservation.

The concept is love and commitment, not gender.

I think the best way to do that is to abolish the phony marriage license scam and get government out of marriage completely. Did Thomas Jefferson need a government license to get married?

1) families and partners need legal recognition and protections (emergency care, deaths, custody, etc.) 2) the stability that committed couples bring to a community is worth the tax incentive, 3) the language and legal recognition must be the same for everyone regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation. Special tiers and terminology (i.e. "Civil unions") creates state-sanctioned second-class citizens and we end up with dozens of bullied gay kids committing suicide.

[Emerald Rocker]

In response to someone's beliefs about marriage, you refer to it as a historically rigid, segregated, sexist, and patriarchal institution.  In the next post, you say that everyone likes the concept of marriage.  And you do so in a very dismissive way, by saying things like "there's no morally-bankrupt horde of progressives" and "stop it", as though your stance is self-apparent.  After a thoroughly negative post about marriage, it's unreasonable to expect people to understand your point of view unless you explain what it is about marriage that you actually like.

And then you say that no one is trying to redefine the word.  In the same post, you redefine the concept underlying marriage as meaning "love and commitment, not gender".  The definition of marriage -- and the underlying concept -- has always included gender.

Based on your last few sentences, it sounds like you dislike the definition of marriage because it inherently excludes same-sex couples, and thus leads to second-class citizens, bullied gay kids, etc.  You want to use the word to refer to committed couples, regardless of gender.  You want to change the definition of marriage.

Yes, there is value in having a word for the concept of two people of any gender who love each other committing themselves to a life-long relationship (there's not a good word for that today).  But there is also value in having a word for the concept of a man and a woman committing themselves to a life-long relationship with each other (the word for that is marriage).  The tendency of both sides is to promote one concept at the expense of the other, which is why we even have a cultural conflict.

As an aside: kids are bullied because they're different, not because of what the word "marriage" means.  I understand that peoples' goal is to ensure that homosexuality (among other things) is not viewed as different, and people believe that eliminating gender specificity from our language will accomplish that goal.  It won't.

[Arkhan Asylum]

Arkhan, are you playing "Army of Allah" in your Arab deck?

Aw yeah, and Jihad. 

[rag-time4]

Giving married couples legal recognition should be done by recognizing the private contracts people enter into freely on their own. If two people call themselves married it should be no business whatsoever of any third party. No third party has any business telling free people what kinds of contracts people can enter into and have recognized in court.

Arkhan, are you playing "Army of Allah" in your Arab deck?

Aw yeah, and Jihad.  

Jihad has always been a bit too pricey for me to grab... Maybe one day lol

[Arkhan Asylum]

I have a signed one.  It was like 18 money.

It totally blows in the deck though because the only white card is Abu Jafar. 

[rag-time4]

I have a signed one.  It was like 18 money.

It totally blows in the deck though because the only white card is Abu Jafar. 

Ever consider playing Heaven's Gate from legends to beef up your Jihad?

[Arkhan Asylum]

Yup but im going strictly Arabian style, so I passed.

Only non arab cards are the lands (lotus vales and undiscovered paradise and shit)

[rag-time4]

Yup but im going strictly Arabian style, so I passed.

Only non arab cards are the lands (lotus vales and undiscovered paradise and shit)

Arabs believe in heaven too Ark

[JoshTurboTrollX]

Play'n the Jyhad card.   

[Arkhan Asylum]

Yup but im going strictly Arabian style, so I passed.

Only non arab cards are the lands (lotus vales and undiscovered paradise and shit)

Arabs believe in heaven too Ark

That's racist.

[rag-time4]

Of any of the card games that came out in he mid 90s, are any still around beside Magic?

[Bardoly]

Since it has been mentioned, if anyone's interested, I could dig through my untouched-for-too-long boxes of cards, and see what Arabian Nights cards I still have.  (I know that I still have a mint Shahrazad lying around somewhere.  I also didn't realize that Arabian Mountains were so sought after.  What in the world!)

[Joe Redifer]

Its hard to believe that in 2013 people still get their panties in a wad over gay marriage. It won't hurt straight marriage AT ALL. Not in any way, shape or form. To believe it will is almost kind of incomprehensible. I guess some people just want to live in the past, Some people want to stay primitive.

[VestCunt]

In response to someone's beliefs about marriage, you refer to it as a historically rigid, segregated, sexist, and patriarchal institution.  In the next post, you say that everyone likes the concept of marriage.  And you do so in a very dismissive way, by saying things like "there's no morally-bankrupt horde of progressives" and "stop it", as though your stance is self-apparent.  After a thoroughly negative post about marriage, it's unreasonable to expect people to understand your point of view unless you explain what it is about marriage that you actually like.

Where is my "thoroughly negative post about marriage"? I wrote one sentence and prefaced it with "historically". Furthermore, none of what I said was a personal opinion: marriage was segregated; women were chattel. You echoed many of the same flaws. I'm sorry if history offended you.

The definition of marriage -- and the underlying concept -- has always included gender.

Yes and, until recently, it also included marrying someone of your own race. But I guess that got "redefined". The core concept is love and commitment.

You want to change the definition of marriage.

You want to restrict marriage. According to you, heterosexuals happen to fall in meaningful, authentic love with an appropriate gender ratio, while 3% of the population are misled by their hearts and fall into some kind of secondary tier.

As an aside: kids are bullied because they're different, not because of what the word "marriage" means.  I understand that peoples' goal is to ensure that homosexuality (among other things) is not viewed as different, and people believe that eliminating gender specificity from our language will accomplish that goal.  It won't.

Really? You don't think hysterical politicians screaming about the erosion of our "institutions" and the "sanctity of of marriage" contributes to children's perception of their gay classmates being different? What about the civil rights movement and desegregating blacks? Were our racist laws contributing to violence or were black people just tired of being inconvenienced on the bus?

PROTIP: When our media and political and religious leaders question the fundamental personhood of a minority and doubt the disposition of the hearts and deny their rights and invent special rhetoric for their unions, IT LABELS THAT MINORITY AS DIFFERENT. Ahem:

kids are bullied because they're different.

[rag-time4]

Yup but im going strictly Arabian style, so I passed.

Only non arab cards are the lands (lotus vales and undiscovered paradise and shit)

Arabs believe in heaven too Ark

That's racist.

Alright, now i'm mad

[rag-time4]

Yup but im going strictly Arabian style, so I passed.

Only non arab cards are the lands (lotus vales and undiscovered paradise and shit)

Many Arabs believe in heaven too Ark

That's racist.

fixed

[Arkhan Asylum]

Yup but im going strictly Arabian style, so I passed.

Only non arab cards are the lands (lotus vales and undiscovered paradise and shit)

Many Arabs believe in heaven too Ark

That's racist.

fixed

http://8e8460c4912582c4e519-11fcbfd88ed5b90cfb46edba899033c9.r65.cf1.rackcdn.com/sales//cardscans/MAGMSP/428238_lg.jpg

[Bardoly]

http://8e8460c4912582c4e519-11fcbfd88ed5b90cfb46edba899033c9.r65.cf1.rackcdn.com/sales//cardscans/MAGMSP/428238_lg.jpg

I used to have that card.  I don't remember ever using it purposely in a deck, unless I put it in my 5-Color Magic 250-card deck.

[420GOAT]

we live in a world where almost anything goes. except speaking what you really feel. if i dont like a certain group for certain reasons, why cant i say so? its how i feel. its what i know from my experiences. but you cant. now if sky blue people are known to steal and rob houses, and i see one on my block who is just wondering around, why cant i ask what is it hes looking for? does that make me racists? now to just preach out loud that is wrong since you are trying to spread your feelings onto everyone, but if i dont like them, i dont like them.... what the fuck! there are some ideas that should be under wraps, gay marriage is one of them. i dont want my kids seeing same sex affection since its not just a culture thing but kids really dont get it.....no matter how i try to explain....thats the shit that bothers me.

as for foriegners and shit, people other than Chicanos....not Mexicans, but Chicanos, yes im leary at first but i take people on a one at a time basis. but there are groups that no matter how hard i try to see the forrest for the trees, they are always the same 90% of the time. there are stereotypes for a reason.