Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Ram23

Political Correctness

Recommended Posts

I don't think there's a thread for this topic, and it usually ends up being discussed in other threads - so I thought I'd make one. This article seems like a good jumping off point.

 


 

AP Stylebook Instructs Writers Not to Use Words Like 'Pro-Life,' 'Refugee' & 'Terrorist'

 

http://insider.foxnews.com/amp/article/56851

 

The AP Stylebook, published by The Associated Press, is intended to provide universal guidelines for journalists when it comes to stylistic things like punctuation, capitalization and using certain words over others.

 

The 2017 edition of the stylebook directs writers to avoid words like "pro-life," "migrant," "refugee," "Islamist" and "terrorist."

 

Rachel Alexander, an opinion contributor for The Hill, said on "Fox & Friends" this morning that this is an attempt to promote language that liberals tend to favor.

 

She explained that the guide instructs writers to use "anti-abortion instead of "pro-life," "people struggling to enter Europe" instead of "migrant" or "refugee," and "militant," "lone wolf" or "attacker" instead of "terrorist" or "Islamist."

 

She said if authors do not adhere to that style when they submit an article to a mainstream media outlet, they will likely see their words edited to conform.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think there's a thread for this topic, and it usually ends up being discussed in other threads - so I thought I'd make one. This article seems like a good jumping off point.

 


 

AP Stylebook Instructs Writers Not to Use Words Like 'Pro-Life,' 'Refugee' & 'Terrorist'

 

http://insider.foxnews.com/amp/article/56851

 

The AP Stylebook, published by The Associated Press, is intended to provide universal guidelines for journalists when it comes to stylistic things like punctuation, capitalization and using certain words over others.

 

The 2017 edition of the stylebook directs writers to avoid words like "pro-life," "migrant," "refugee," "Islamist" and "terrorist."

 

Rachel Alexander, an opinion contributor for The Hill, said on "Fox & Friends" this morning that this is an attempt to promote language that liberals tend to favor.

 

She explained that the guide instructs writers to use "anti-abortion instead of "pro-life," "people struggling to enter Europe" instead of "migrant" or "refugee," and "militant," "lone wolf" or "attacker" instead of "terrorist" or "Islamist."

 

She said if authors do not adhere to that style when they submit an article to a mainstream media outlet, they will likely see their words edited to conform.

 

The AP Stylebook is pretty much a relic of the 20th century, so this isn't really news.

 

Migrant is likely being avoided because the EU struck a horrific deal with Turkey on treating economic and some political migrants like cattle which is now called the "migrant deal". Some call it the refugee deal as well. Migrant and refugee are all over the Euro press. Don't see it as much over here.

 

Great article on the EU-Turkey Migrant deal here:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/18/eu-deal-turkey-migrants-refugees-q-and-a

 

Despite Trump's wall this is currently the standard bearer of pro-nationalist immigration policy. Gives $3 billion Euro to a scumbag in order to keep enough brown and black people out of the "mother continent".

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great idea.  Now when that nonsense comes up in every other current events thread, we can say it is off-topic and direct the conversation about generally accepted societal guidelines for civility to this thread.  I won't start lobbying for a change to the name of this thread..... yet.

 

On topic, I agree that "pro-life" is a terrible misnomer.  Just because you support the right to choose, does not mean you are not "pro-life".  That has more to do with accuracy than civility. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually don't mind the "anti-abortion" label, it makes sense. The other side should be "pro-abortion." That would make the debate much more clear and simple. "Pro-choice" is just as overly broad and just as much of a marketing slogan as "pro-life." The push to change one and not the other indicates a political preference by those insisting upon the change of parlance.

 

Now, phases like "refugee," "terrorist," "Islamist," and "migrant?" I don't see any relevant reason to drop those from the vernacular other than to purposely erase the distinction those words make. The suggested phrases to use in their place are more confusing and less concise. "People struggling to enter Europe" could mean a wide range of people - refugees are a pretty specific group of people traveling for a very specific reason. People could be "struggling to enter Europe" because their flight was delayed, they forgot their passport on the plane, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^I said I support the right to choose.  If you need specifics beyond that, I support the right of a woman to choose to have an abortion within the legally allowable parameters.  Better?

 

I don't know anyone who is pro-abortion.  Every person I know is pro-life.

 

I would suggest you focus less on politics.  This idea that politics controls everything and anything around you is what will drive you mad.  Societal conversations should be allowed without the political blame game and victimization cards being played at every turn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ and on the flip side, just because one does not support abortion does not automatically make them pro-life. 

 

I actually don't mind the "anti-abortion" label, it makes sense. The other side should be "pro-abortion." That would make the debate much more clear and simple. "Pro-choice" is just as overly broad and just as much of a marketing slogan as "pro-life." The push to change one and not the other indicates a political preference by those insisting upon the change of parlance.

 

We love to take words though, and use them to help dumb down any issue that should require more nuance. In the attempt to simplify the result is confusion.

 

I'll posit that anyone who favors limits on third trimester abortions is arguably "anti-abortion" or isn't "pro-choice."     

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The stylebook doesn't even deserve this much attention. It's about as relevant as a CD player these days.

 

It's just the migrant and refugee stance is bizarre. Terms are used regularly by human rights agencies and the UN. It's got to be a Euro thing that's why I mentioned the deal.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The War on Christmas was created by a middle-aged suburban mom named Karen after a school administrator stopped her from sneaking spiked eggnog into her son's school Christmas play in a container marked "Happy Birthday Jesus"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BART feels that making the public aware of the truth would promote the wrong thing:

 

BART Withholding Surveillance Videos Of Crime To Avoid ‘Stereotypes’

 

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2017/07/09/bart-withholding-surveillance-videos-of-crime-to-avoid-stereotypes/

 

SAN FRANCISCO (KPIX) — In the last three months, there have been at least three robberies on BART involving groups of teenagers.

 

“I think people are genuinely concerned — they are fearful about the stories that have come out about the recent attacks, the assaults, the thefts,” said Debora Allen, who is a member of the BART Board of Directors.

 

Allen told us the agency issued an explanation for why it is being tight-lipped about the thefts.

 

“To release these videos would create a high level of racially insensitive commentary toward the district,” she was told. “And in addition it would create a racial bias in the riders against minorities on the trains.”

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BART feels that making the public aware of the truth would promote the wrong thing:

 

BART Withholding Surveillance Videos Of Crime To Avoid ‘Stereotypes’

 

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2017/07/09/bart-withholding-surveillance-videos-of-crime-to-avoid-stereotypes/

 

SAN FRANCISCO (KPIX) — In the last three months, there have been at least three robberies on BART involving groups of teenagers.

 

“I think people are genuinely concerned — they are fearful about the stories that have come out about the recent attacks, the assaults, the thefts,” said Debora Allen, who is a member of the BART Board of Directors.

 

Allen told us the agency issued an explanation for why it is being tight-lipped about the thefts.

 

“To release these videos would create a high level of racially insensitive commentary toward the district,” she was told. “And in addition it would create a racial bias in the riders against minorities on the trains.”

 

 

 

God, why do you even care? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^he just misses the "good ole days"

 

Exactly.  Nothing like 20 something white males dictating for others what is offensive. 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually don't mind the "anti-abortion" label, it makes sense. The other side should be "pro-abortion."

 

Come on, I think you are smarter than this.

 

The vast majority of people who are pro-choice do not believe that abortion is a wonderful thing that women should be getting regularly. Most pro-choice people believe that people should be better educated about contraception and not get pregnant in the first place if they don't want to have a child. In no way is pro-choice equivalent to pro-abortion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

God, why do you even care? 

 

Why do you care so much that I care just a little bit?

 

Exactly.  Nothing like 20 something white males dictating for others what is offensive. 

 

I don't follow - that's exactly what I'm criticizing, though in this case it was an old white woman BART official dictating that the violent crime footage would encourage offensive thoughts because of the complexion of the perpetrators.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

God, why do you even care? 

 

Why do you care so much that I care just a little bit?

 

Exactly.  Nothing like 20 something white males dictating for others what is offensive. 

 

I don't follow - that's exactly what I'm criticizing, though in this case it was an old white woman BART official dictating that the violent crime footage would encourage offensive thoughts because of the complexion of the perpetrators.

 

(don't know how do do the double quote)

1.  Because I view as as a thread for white people to get off on pointing out reverse racism and how we shouldn't be politically correct.

 

2.  I'm confused, where exactly are you criticizing in your post? Are you criticizing BART?  If so, you are criticizing political correctness, and that's my whole problem with this thread - if it turns into a thread of people posting every time they are unhappy someone else acting in a PC manner. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All this discussion could possibly all be in the race thread.  From what I can tell, about 95% of Ram's gripes about civility are centered on racial sensitivities.  There's an astounding number of people, on both sides of the aisle, who obsess about that issue for one reason or another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's an example of how a company can fall into a political correctness trap and alienate half the country:

 

Reebok mocks Trump's compliments of Macron's wife

 

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/342159-reebok-mocks-trumps-compliments-of-macrons-wife

 

mo0y0lpz31az.jpg

 


 

Because apparently telling someone who is in good shape that they are in good shape is off limits, no matter what the circumstance. Regardless of your thoughts on this, what does it have to do with shoes? Why do companies let their social media people pull stunts like this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ I'm not buying Reebok because their product sucks. I'm really hoping Crocs comes out with a statement in full support of the president so you all can start wearing them... with white socks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't know Reebok still existed. They faded into obscurity like Izod.

 

That really takes me back. Reebok was popular in the 90s when I was a kid. They dissipated I think around the time Under Armor somehow became fashionable.

 

I'm not going to lie. It does sound like an attempt from an irrelevant company to use politics for a comeback. You see that a lot with 'brands' in an attempt to restore former glory. Kid Rock and Kathy Griffin for example.

 

What Trump said was inappropriate but it's just one of those instances where I think the hoopla is overblown. I hate Trump overall and I hate to say it because in some instances lately I've been annoyed by the excuse "so and so came from a different time" but we really are just talking about an old guy complimenting someone on their wife's beauty.

 

If someone told me about how beautiful my girlfriend is, I wouldn't take it as a threat, I'd take it as a compliment. Maybe that's just me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's an example of how a company can fall into a political correctness trap and alienate half the country:

 

Reebok mocks Trump's compliments of Macron's wife

 

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/342159-reebok-mocks-trumps-compliments-of-macrons-wife

 

mo0y0lpz31az.jpg

 


 

Because apparently telling someone who is in good shape that they are in good shape is off limits, no matter what the circumstance. Regardless of your thoughts on this, what does it have to do with shoes? Why do companies let their social media people pull stunts like this?

 

When my wife and I were dating we went out to a bar/grill type place.  I dropped her off at the door and went to park she grabbed a seat at the bar while waiting for me.  In that time a man came up to her and commented on her body.  My wife being the independent woman that she is told the guy that he had no right to comment on her body.  When I came in he apologized to me not knowing she was there with someone.  I told him that he didn't owe me an apology but owed her the apology.  He was as confused as Ram because he didn't realize that women are not just objects but are human beings and wish to be treated that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't know Reebok still existed. They faded into obscurity like Izod.

 

That really takes me back. Reebok was popular in the 90s when I was a kid. They dissipated I think around the time Under Armor somehow became fashionable.

 

I'm not going to lie. It does sound like an attempt from an irrelevant company to use politics for a comeback. You see that a lot with 'brands' in an attempt to restore former glory. Kid Rock and Kathy Griffin for example.

 

What Trump said was inappropriate but it's just one of those instances where I think the hoopla is overblown. I hate Trump overall and I hate to say it because in some instances lately I've been annoyed by the excuse "so and so came from a different time" but we really are just talking about an old guy complimenting someone on their wife's beauty.

 

If someone told me about how beautiful my girlfriend is, I wouldn't take it as a threat, I'd take it as a compliment. Maybe that's just me.

 

 

WOAH YOU LEAVE IZOD OUT OF THIS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since half the country loves this kind of stuff... at least according to Ram, I think The Donald should come up with some sort of ratings system for the wives of other heads of state.  Maybe him and Mitt can mend fences by making up some kind of binder.  They could sell it at Hobby Lobby and WalMart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When my wife and I were dating we went out to a bar/grill type place.  I dropped her off at the door and went to park she grabbed a seat at the bar while waiting for me.  In that time a man came up to her and commented on her body.  My wife being the independent woman that she is told the guy that he had no right to comment on her body.  When I came in he apologized to me not knowing she was there with someone.  I told him that he didn't owe me an apology but owed her the apology.  He was as confused as Ram because he didn't realize that women are not just objects but are human beings and wish to be treated that way.

 

Your wife getting hit on at Applebees is not a comparable situation to the issue at hand here. No one is claiming that it's always appropriate to tell a woman she's in "great shape," but it's far from always inappropriate as is the implication here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ commenting on someone's physical appearance is generally in bad form and most always unwelcome.  Those of us with manners avoid such faux pas.  Others blame it on political correctness. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ It's inappropriate when it is in the form of an unwanted sexual advance.  Telling an elderly woman she is in great shape for her age is completely different territory. Those of us who can read social cues can make a distinction without the need for zero tolerance policies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get sexually harassed and inappropriately touched by women at work all the time. I tell them it makes me uncomfortable and they say "shut up, you know you like it" and stuff like that. It's such a double standard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh my lord, a lot of "mansplaining" going on for both sides of the argument on here. Glad my wife doesn't follow this site, she'd smack you all down. I'll stick to easier subjects like Global Warming and Middle East peace.  :-D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh my lord, a lot of "mansplaining" going on for both sides of the argument on here. Glad my wife doesn't follow this site, she'd smack you all down. I'll stick to easier subjects like Global Warming and Middle East peace.  :-D

 

Almost every post on this site contains mansplaining  :-D

 

That's probably why women never post on here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the AP Stylebook is a relic, the UPI Stylebook is even more of a relic. But as a former Unipresser myself, I still favor the UPI version -- if for no other reason than its advocacy of plain old common sense in journalism. To wit: the entry on "burro, burrow," which reads: "A burro is an ass; a burrow is a hole in the ground. As a journalist, you are expected to know the difference."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ It's inappropriate when it is in the form of an unwanted sexual advance.  Telling an elderly woman she is in great shape for her age is completely different territory. Those of us who can read social cues can make a distinction without the need for zero tolerance policies.

 

Please walk up to every woman you meet for the first time that they're "in great shape, beautiful."  Please, please, please do it.  I dare you.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...