Triumph Rat Motorcycle Forums banner

61 - 80 of 257 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,267 Posts
Does anyone know where the 'c' word originated from?
This is from a quick Google search:

Originating in India through the Goddess Kunti, the word has since evolved from the Old Norse “kunta,” referring to vulvas, with many variations existing in other Germanic and Scandinavian languages, including the Danish “kunte” and the modern use of “kont” in Dutch, meaning “buttocks.”
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
797 Posts
Discussion Starter #62 (Edited)
This is from a quick Google search:
That's interesting, it could well be the original version of the 'c' word. The version I'm thinking of was mentioned on a TV documentary a while back where they were talking about Victorian London where Prostitutes plied their trade.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,267 Posts
That's interesting, it could well be the original version of the 'c' word. The version I'm thinking of was mention on a TV documentary a while back where they were talking Victorian London where Prostitutes plied their trade.
It seems the word has undergone many variations since its origin, Wikipaedia has a page on how different languages affected its evolution. However I couldn't post that up here as it uses the current version of the word many times.

Go watch the video suggested by SquireSCA in post#60. That will show you how and why words change.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,267 Posts
Back in the day when my kids were small, and they were having political correctness shoved down their throats every day by fanatical (dare I say, left wing) teachers, I would turn them off by being politically correct and describing everything in politically correct language. For example, at breakfast I would say something like "please be silent and eat your unborn chicken embryo" (a line gleaned from the movie Alien Nation).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
797 Posts
Discussion Starter #65
I've always tried to teach my kids not to be to concerned about being politically correct but to form their own opinions which they have done so, but in the same breath I have ALWAYS taught them to be respectful of other peoples opinions whether they agree with them or not.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,271 Posts
I've always tried to teach my kids not to be to concerned about being politically correct but to form their own opinions which they have done so, but in the same breath I have ALWAYS taught them to be respectful of other peoples opinions whether they agree with them or not.
Let me challenge that for a moment...

What if someone's opinion is wrong, or stupid? LOL

Eg. Someone who believes that the world is flat. Or... A Nazi...

Why should I respect those beliefs? I must acknowledge them, because they exist, I guess... But respect them?

I think that that is part of the problem at the core of political correctness, that we must accept and respect whatever dumb sh!t people come up with... Let's face it, there are a lot of stupid, bad, and even downright dangerous opinions and beliefs. Why would I put those on an equal pedestal as a good opinion, or one that is positive or has merit?

Someone who believes that their magic sky wizard will reward them if they throw gay men off of rooftops, should not be in any way held equal to something like MLK, or Mother Theresa... They all have beliefs, but only some of them are worthy of respect, while others are worthy only of contempt...

Just food for thought...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,267 Posts
I've always tried to teach my kids not to be to concerned about being politically correct but to form their own opinions which they have done so, but in the same breath I have ALWAYS taught them to be respectful of other peoples opinions whether they agree with them or not.
So, you are assuming that I DIDN'T teach my kids respect for the opinions of others, which implies that I was a bad father?? I'm disgusted and offended at your attitude and will complain, if not squeem and squeem until I turn blue.

See how it works Jerry? There's nothing you can say - nothing - that someone won't take offense at for their own gain. Its now reaching scary lows when we are all being conditioned to think in a certain way, at the time I could see it coming and made a great effort to 'deprogram' my kids. Incidentally, were you aware that the phrase "political correctness" itself was coined by Mao Zedung?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,271 Posts
So, you are assuming that I DIDN'T teach my kids respect for the opinions of others, which implies that I was a bad father?? I'm disgusted and offended at your attitude and will complain, if not squeem and squeem until I turn blue.

See how it works Jerry? There's nothing you can say - nothing - that someone won't take offense at for their own gain. Its now reaching scary lows when we are all being conditioned to think in a certain way, at the time I could see it coming and made a great effort to 'deprogram' my kids. Incidentally, were you aware that the phrase "political correctness" itself was coined by Mao Zedung?
Offense is a social currency today, worth more than gold. Outrage is the new standard, as it gives the irrelevant a voice.


“Those with unearned privileges often spin things as 'political correctness' to further silence those they wish to oppress.” ― DaShanne Stokes

“Claiming to be offended is a great way to elevate yourself at the expense of others: “Look at me! I'm a much better person than you! And I judge you! I condemn you! Shame! Shame! SHAME!” These social media shamings bear an uncanny resemblance to medieval witch hunts.” ― Oliver Markus Malloy, Bad Choices Make Good Stories: The Heroin Scene in Fort Myers
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,271 Posts
“These social media shamings bear an uncanny resemblance to medieval witch hunts.”

If you were accused of being a witch back then, you were **** out of luck. Being accused was all it took. Forget “innocent until proven guilty.” Nobody bothered to prove your guilt. Nobody dared to speak up on your behalf, for fear of being called a witch sympathizer. Because if you were seen as the friend of a witch, you were the next one to be accused of being a witch.

As soon as a woman was accused of being a witch, she was a pariah without any friends. Nobody wanted to be seen in public with her. The whole village ganged up on her. Everyone was trying to outdo everyone else in their antiwitch fervor: “Look at me! I'm throwing rocks at the witch! Look at how much I hate witches! I am definitely NOT a witch myself!”

Whenever I see a social media mob ganging up on a celebrity for supposedly saying something “offensive” it reminds me of the Salem witch hysteria: “That's racist! And me calling you a racist proves that I'm definitely not a racist myself! That's sexist! I shame you! And that means I'm definitely not sexist myself! I shame you for being a bad person. That means I'm a good person! Look at how really really offended I am! That means I'm a really really good person!”

According to the bible, Jesus said "let he who is without sin throw the first rock." But a lot of people seem to think he said: "If you throw rocks at someone else, it proves that you're without sin.”
― Oliver Markus Malloy, Why Creeps Don't Know They're Creeps - What Game of Thrones can teach us about relationships and Hollywood scandals
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,267 Posts
Offense is a social currency today, worth more than gold. Outrage is the new standard, as it gives the irrelevant a voice.


“Those with unearned privileges often spin things as 'political correctness' to further silence those they wish to oppress.” ― DaShanne Stokes

“Claiming to be offended is a great way to elevate yourself at the expense of others: “Look at me! I'm a much better person than you! And I judge you! I condemn you! Shame! Shame! SHAME!” These social media shamings bear an uncanny resemblance to medieval witch hunts.” ― Oliver Markus Malloy, Bad Choices Make Good Stories: The Heroin Scene in Fort Myers
I could not agree more. Its now becoming more than just political correctness, like PC on steroids with virtue signalling and mission creep thrown in for good measure. There will inevitably come a point where either we are all mindless zombies or there is civil war. If that did come to pass,I know which side I'll be on. Orwell's novel 1984 is being used as an instruction manual.
The reason for virtue signalling is a fear of being labelled that which the rest of the crowd despises for any reason. "Fear the witch, for it is you".

Reminds me of something -
- Warning: contains strong language.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
797 Posts
Discussion Starter #71 (Edited)
Let me challenge that for a moment...

What if someone's opinion is wrong, or stupid? LOL

Eg. Someone who believes that the world is flat. Or... A Nazi...

Why should I respect those beliefs? I must acknowledge them, because they exist, I guess... But respect them?
I accept your challenge my good friend and will reply with something that happened in my family recently as a good example.
My second youngest son became a Mormon earlier this year, I know it's not as extreme as flat earth theories or Nazism, but none the less he did so and to be honest I only think he did it because of some bird he met :rolleyes:.
Anyhow I'm not religious in the slightest neither is my wife, I have nothing against people who are religious as long as it's not rammed down my throat. My son obviously realises that I don't believe in religion but still discusses it with me without the need to push his beliefs on to me, in the same way as I will listen to his opinions without pushing my non beliefs on to him.

He made the choice to become a Mormon for which I respect, that is what he has chosen to do.

I said 'I have nothing against people who are religious as long as it's not rammed down my throat' which I feel is the crux of the matter, it's when peoples opinions, beliefs or lifestyles are rammed down my throat that is when it becomes an issue.

People should be free to have their own opinions but also realise that not every bugger on the planet share their opinions.

Of course the earth is flat, why do think footballs, soccer balls, don't roll off the side of the pitch during a game?

........that's a joke by the way (y)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,267 Posts
“These social media shamings bear an uncanny resemblance to medieval witch hunts.”
There's a whole bunch of ways you can describe this, for example being a conscientious objector at the time of WWI would get you facing the firing squad in the UK. "If you are not with us, you are against us", with no in between.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,271 Posts
This is good stuff! To be continued... gonna go ride today, there is a vintage bike fest up in the mountains and I am gonna go meet some people and have a little fun on the Street Cup...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,267 Posts
My second youngest son became a Mormon earlier this year,
Not something I could do myself, I need my morning mug of tea too much.:D

I said 'I have nothing against people who are religious as long as it's not rammed down my throat' which I feel is the crux of the matter, it's when peoples opinions, beliefs or lifestyles are rammed down my throat that is when it becomes an issue.
Personally I don't even think that's the crux of the matter. It may not be pleasant to have something constantly shoved down your throat, but it is easy to simply ignore it and carry on with your own beliefs.

No, I believe things become an issue when someone tries to force me to act in a way or speak the same way that they think appropriate, regardless of what I think. As an example I turn to the anti-smoking template - not only have we had the ideology forced upon us, but been punished at the same time by prohibition laws - plain packs, highest product tax in the world, smoking bans etc, the list goes on. That's when it starts to threaten freedom and becomes dangerous. I could write a book about the anti-smoking template and how that same template is used for other things. Respect has to be earned, its not given, so even though I am forced to obey, they cannot make me respect them. Only hatred, not for their views, which they are entitled to, but for them, in the way they use force of law for their own gain. Even their annual sh1tfest is held behind closed doors, so that no one can challenge them.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
439 Posts
Just caught up with this, and wow, what a discussion! And the video with John Cleese and Bill Maher was delicious! But we're nibbling around the edges of why so many are "offended", and, I think, missing the larger agenda of Political Correctness (PC). For those who are actively trying to shape society, PC is a way to shut down discussion, to deligitimize the opposition before a discussion even happens.

You see it with the race stuff because the race card is so unbelievably effective at gaining certain political advantages, and destroying opponents even when they are not racist in the slightest way. One cannot have a discussion about facts the SJW crowd doesn't want to acknowledge. As an example, no white person can point out much of the problem in American black families is due to rampant fatherlessness, without immediately being labeled racist. When blacks do the same thing, they are labeled Uncle Toms which is how you label a black conservative a racist equivalent when the race card does not work. The discussion of the link between fatherlessness and the many issues facing the U.S. black community is off limits from the start, even though exploring the link between fatherlessness and those issues is not racial, but sociological.

From WikiPedia, Sociology is "a social science that uses various methods of empirical investigation and critical analysis to develop a body of knowledge about social order and social change." The issues of fatherlessness in the U.S. black community should be ripe for research and discussion, precisely because it is not racist per se--it is not as big an issue in other countries, and hard-working blacks in the U.S. who come from Africa or move here from Europe who have strong families, are appalled at the issues they see in the American black community, and, by and large, do not suffer from the same issues. So clearly this is not a failing based on skin color, on race. But addressing the issue of fatherlessness in the American black community is streng verboten, whether you are a white Denis Prager, or a black like Walter Williams. And the reason it is streng verboten is because it goes against the progressive metanarrative on that issue. The inability to discuss the issues of militant Islam was already touched upon in the John Cleese interview. I don't very often agree with Bill Maher, but he is spot on and rock solid in his criticisms of militant Islam, at least he is not cowed by the PC crowd, who I am sure he drives to apoplexy with his heterodoxy on the issue.

This brings me to a point brilliantly articulated by SquireSCA. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but one is not entitled to their own facts or faulty logic. You are entitled to have an opinion, but you are not entitled to have it respected ... if your facts are wrong, your premises are wrong, and/or your argument is based on correct facts and premises but it is fallacious (or both incorrect facts and fallacious argument), then your opinion is not entitled to respect. PC cannot tolerate this if it wants to shut down discussion on things it cannot win on in the arena of ideas, all ideas, no matter how cockamamie, must be respected, one cannot assail any of them. If you cannot win the argument, make the argument go away, and PC shaming works very, very well at this. Most decent people are horrified at being labeled a racist, and understandably so, racism is an awful thing. But if they cannot hold their own in an argument (meaning logical discussion, debate, not a screaming match) they will go along with the PC position to avoid being labeled a racist, even though in their hearts they feel it is wrong. And the best way to enforce this PC orthodoxy is, well, through screaming. And making up facts (beware of most "fact checker" sites--do your own). If you do a Google search you will find plenty of articles in sources like the Washington Post which argue that fatherless is not a bigger problem in American black families than in other families. Well, precisely because this is not about race, black children in intact middle class families do quite fine, thank you very much. But in poor black sections of America, fatherless most certainly is a huge contributing factor to the problems there.. And poor white sections of America, to be sure. But the PC cfrowd will not only villify opposing views, they'll twist the facts and/or argue fallaciously to make their points.

726168


Lamentably, this works. We cannot have what would have been reasonable sociological discussions about problems in the American black community, or the issues of militant Islam, or myriad other issues that we could have had back in the 1960's. Look at the Universities today. It's not just conservative speakers who cannot have a voice, the curriculum in the social sciences has had large swaths carved out of it which are no longer acceptable for research or discussion.

None of us here, it is fairly obvious from this four pages of discussion, are even remotely racist. Although I find the humor John Cleese and Bill Maher are discussing funny, out of an abundance of caution, I don't tell those jokes any more, because I genuinely do not want to offend anyone who might find them hurtful. Whether I think they should be seen as hurtful or not is irrlevant. How the other sees them is the issue.

But I won't be muzzled in discussions where incorrect facts and fallacious argument is rampant. The heck with that. I couldn't care less whether the typical American SJW is offended. In fact, if I offend them, I figure I must be doing something right. For those of us who like to read, I highly recommend this book. It is not a dry sociological treatise, by any means, in fact it is brilliantly funny. But spot on. Many of you in this discussion will enjoy it immensely, I'm sure.

726169
 

·
Driftless Admin
Joined
·
11,654 Posts
Here's a quiz, real thinker. Which word and that book's title is going to get this thread closed?

It's a nice discussion. Just don't don't want to see it going off the rails into all that crap.

I know people with all sorts of political beliefs, and no SJWs on either side. And lots of oversensitive people on both sides. So I know we can keep the two topics separate.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
797 Posts
Discussion Starter #77 (Edited)
Personally I don't even think that's the crux of the matter. It may not be pleasant to have something constantly shoved down your throat, but it is easy to simply ignore it and carry on with your own beliefs.
I'm using the workplace as an example a lot I know, but the company who I work for has staff from varying backgrounds and beliefs and also of varying age ranges all the way from 17 year old's up to 60 year old's. When I started out in the big wide world of work it was a case of if someone or something got to you it was a case of having to put up and shut up and you quickly learnt that to fit in you had to let a lot of stuff you found a bit 'off' slide. This all seemed to change 10 to 15 years ago, now when you get a new member of staff join the blokes that have been with the firm for years have to change their ways so as to not offend them. This also goes for workers who join from a different country, they don't necessarily have to fit in to the ways we do things, we have to fit in to the ways they do things. Although a lot of these workers are fine with the British way of doing things (I'm trying to word this so I don't kick up another sh1t storm by the way).

I'm a smoker and I think it was 2006 that smoking was banned in the workplace, bars, restaurants and the like. This pissed me off because although I fully understand the fact that a lot of people don't want someone smoking whilst they are eating or watching a movie this is fair enough, what I don't understand is whats wrong with having a ciggy on the factory floor when 99% of the other workers smoke too, the same as being in a lot of pubs. Just because one person objects to the rest of us smoking we have to go outside and freeze our nuts off to have a smoke. Why cant the person who doesn't smoke either go outside and freeze their nuts off or find a no smoking bar to drink in.
It is crazy the amount of tax we pay over here to have a smoke and all this weird green colouring on the packets is just bullsh1t. That one doesn't bother me too much because I roll pipe tobacco and for some reason this doesn't come under the same legislation, god knows why that is.

I totally agree with you about respect having to be earn't and not just given. This is something else I have also taught my kids.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
797 Posts
Discussion Starter #78
Here's a quiz, real thinker. Which word and that book's title is going to get this thread closed?

It's a nice discussion. Just don't don't want to see it going off the rails into all that crap.

I know people with all sorts of political beliefs, and no SJWs on either side. And lots of oversensitive people on both sides. So I know we can keep the two topics separate.
It would be nice to be able to have a discussion without it resulting in a load of political argy bargy. Besides some of the stuff you chaps are talking about goes right over my head o_O

I've got a bit of a Homer Simpson mindset, when things get all complicated all I think about is doughnuts..........
..........mmmh doughnuts
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,916 Posts
Getting very late to this discussion and haven’t read the entire thread but did read some very good interesting points. A radio host I enjoy listening to that gives me a lot of perspective has written a book that I have not read yet, it’s called “Addicted to Outrage: How Thinking Like a Recovering Addict Can Heal the Country”. He describes how many folks freak out “the daily outrage”.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
71 Posts
My wife is half Japanese and growing up here in the US living in a rural area(seams that the more rural the more narrow minded people are) she did not have a very good experience growing up, I would never call her a Jap, seams wrong to me and I know it does to her, this isnt some fake feeling she has, its genuine based on how she heard it used over her lifetime. But by the same token I know that you did not use it to insult the Japanese culture, you were referring to a motorcycle from Japan, nothing to do with being or not being PC but we do have to understand that just because the word we chose seams innocent to us doesn't mean it is to others. I think there are some on here that are mixing up PC with words that are used/excepted in different places, hence my example of the word c**t, call that to a certain HD rider(trying to tie this in to the initial thread where this all started) and you've just picked a fight that maybe you didn't want to.
I don't want to single you out, but I do want to comment on a larger issue you touched on here. The bolded part has to cut both ways, the offended can not have a monopoly on the exchange of ideas. What is being argued is that people have a right to change the meaning of third party speech, and that's just insanity.
It makes zero sense that something said by person A to person B can be a personal attack on person C short of directed physical threats. As it relates to this, if someone said something that is at this point in time not considered offensive to the people they are speaking to, I don't feel you can come in as an outsider and claim it's personally insulting to you. (Again, you being used as a collective not trying to personally call anyone out) I see this in the same vein as the cleaning of history and this new common idea that we can subject the events of the past to the societal conventions of today.
Sticking with things relating to east Asia, looking back at the anti-Japanese pamphlets that were spread around the United States during World War 2 and claiming that seeing them today is a racist attack. This is a separate thing from the concentration camps and acts of physical violence happening during WW2 as those should have been seen as deplorable then.
 
61 - 80 of 257 Posts
Top