Brainstorming Far Far Too Offensive

So it happens again. The term brainstorming has been deemed insensitive to people with epilepsy and other brain disorders, so the folks at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment in Belfast will begin using the term 'thought-showers' to replace the offensive term brainstorming.

As is typical for these politically correct word/name/etc. changes, it was not someone with epilepsy or any brain disorder who said it was offensive. The Welsh Development Agency began the fretting by listing "brainstorming" as a banned, insensitive word, along with manila and nit-picking because those words were used in the slave trade.

This story, however, does have a ray of hope. Someone is actually speaking out against it from the Campaign for Plain English. John Wild, a spokesperson for the Campaign for Plain English, said these actions had "reached the point of ridicule."

He went on to say,

'You do sometimes wonder if some people haven't got anything better to do with their time,' said spokesman John Wild. 'Do they just sit down and search out enough words until eventually they can say: "I can make that out to be politically incorrect"?

'Of course there are certain terms that should be deemed out of bounds, but then sometimes things go too far. I am certain that those who dreamt this up are not suffering from any brain disease or injury. They just want to find offence anywhere they can stumble across it'.

Source

Oh, if only this were the only one I had to post today...

Originally posted by junglejake
This story, however, does have a ray of hope. Someone is actually speaking out against it from the Campaign for Plain English. John Wild, a spokesperson for the Campaign for Plain English, said these actions had "reached the point of ridicule."

Meritous tidings to ye jolly good fellows at the Campaign for Plain English to spare us from any evolution of the lexicon... ever. Good show! Good show I say!

Why just a fortnight ago I had my knickers in knots over a midget shoppe merchant trying to sell me some unholy advancement in pantaloons called 'dungerees.' Holy Saint Francis I exhasperated, ne'er hearing such an abomination to my delicate regressive sensibilities afore, and from such a lowly station I might add. Why I took to my chamber with conniptions receiving no callers aside from my harlot and servants for a day and a night!

When will this vile progress ever stop? When will this vile progress ever stop? Some stubborn soul should really do something. I can't possibly be expected to function in a society that evolves. And I shouldn't have to try.

er...Progress is censorship?

Originally posted by junglejake
er...Progress is censorship?

Show me censorship here Jake.

As far as I know, a company/department/person can decide to talk how they want. If a company says Hey, I've got an idea, let's not call our customers 'n-word's anymore. It might help business.

That's not censorship and only real tin foil heads think there's such a thing as PC police coming to get them.

So some department somewhere is going to start having "thought showers" instead of brainstorming sessions.

Who cares? You have every right to make fun of them, but they can do what they want. And it's not censorship to write academic papers suggesting new ideas, or to issue company memos on the use of new and evolving language.

It's an internal decision governments and companies and autonomous grown ups make every single day. It's not a big deal. Your outrage over a minor language change on the other side of the world that has nothing to do with you is a programmed response from a false frame manufactured in a Republican focus group in the early 90's

And I'm sick of it. But you do what you like. I'm not the "thought police" here. The "anti PC" people are with their never ending shadow war against non-existent censorship and oppression.

We now return you to yet another three hour block of Rush Limbaugh saying you can't use the word "Feminazi" ....repeatedly.

Such a rebel.

[edit on 29-6-2005 by RANT]

If this was one single situation on its own, I would agree with you. I'm blowing this way out of proportion and trying to make mountains out of no hills. However, this is not an isolated incident, it is only one example of a trend developing throughout the western world, and its not limited to just language. It's affecting our history, our religions, our politics, our education, and our day to day speech.

The form of censorship I percieve is taking place is much more nefarious than making it against the law. I see an active effort to segregate the world's population. I see an active effort to curtail the expression of ideas, not by changing the laws, but by changing people's thought patterns. Now I'll explain why.

All over the western world today, special racial situations are being created through words and laws. Affirmative action seporates minorities teven more than they already are by creating special situations based simply on the color of your skin. Words like 'n-word', wreathed in hatrid and slavery, is totally acceptable for an African American to say, but a teacher trying to teach about the hate surrounding the word who is not black will be suspended if not fired outright. It's acceptable to say the land was better off before whity came, but you cannot say the land is better now that America has been formed. All over the place we have these special situations meant to cater to one race or another, but the unintentional side effect (if it's not intentional) is to create a larger divide between the races, not bring them together.

The manner in which this censorship I'm seeing taking place is, as I said, nefarious. Rather than make the words illegal, the effort is being made in the minds of everyone. Laws can be broken, but if we can be reprogrammed to the point where the word brainstorm causes utter disgust in our minds, we will not say it. There are many words I hold in that regard, and I don't say them. It was, however, my choice. Companies making those choices for people, while apparently minor on the surface, are stealing away our very ability to say such words. What complements the companies is the legal system. People can sue for being offended, they always have. The difference is, now they can win. Do they win by a judicial ruling? I have not come across a single case in America where a judge has decided to award someone for being offended. However, if these words deemed inappropriate, like manila or brainstorming, are used by anyone, the media evicerates them as biggots. As a result, I have read about cases where someone settled out of court because of the media coverage, even local. They've been demonized for using demonized words.

Unfortunately, I wasn't able to do justice to my explanation because I'm pressed for time right now and my frickin' compy keeps rebooting, losing everything I'd already typed. Had that not been happening, we may have been having this conversation on the thread I was creating regarding the article I linked to above, but after the second time I lost heart

Rant, I'm sorry my take on things upsets you so much. We obviously have two very contradictory viewpoints on this issue. I don't point this stuff out to anger you or anyone else. I am simply passionate about this issue, and feel that it needs to come to light. As a result, I post many examples where policies or laws are created to keep someone from potentially being offended. There are many, many, many more instances where it hasn't gotten to the legal status yet and is simply a group demanding an appology, retraction, or reprisal for comments that I'm following to see if anything develops, but I'm not bringing them to the table here at ATS. I am passionate about this issue, as, it appears, you are, Rant. I hope you can come to understand why I feel the need to share this just as you feel the need to reply.

Originally posted by junglejake
Rant, I'm sorry my take on things upsets you so much. We obviously have two very contradictory viewpoints on this issue. I don't point this stuff out to anger you or anyone else. I am simply passionate about this issue, and feel that it needs to come to light. As a result, I post many examples where policies or laws are created to keep someone from potentially being offended. There are many, many, many more instances where it hasn't gotten to the legal status yet and is simply a group demanding an appology, retraction, or reprisal for comments that I'm following to see if anything develops, but I'm not bringing them to the table here at ATS. I am passionate about this issue, as, it appears, you are, Rant. I hope you can come to understand why I feel the need to share this just as you feel the need to reply.

No, that's an excellent, well reasoned "big picture" demonstration of the thought process to explain where you're coming and I respect that immensely.

Thank you. It helps tremendously. I think we might actually make progress this time. Just let me reread and research what you're saying.

My apples to your oranges has always been though that there are real conspiracies that were designed simply to wage war on fabricated conspiracies for an ulterior motive.

As I'm sure you've gathered from my perspective that's the Anti-PC movement, the War on the War on Christianity and the Angry White Backlash to not being "special." I could add the War on the Liberal Media Conspiracy, but it's all the same thing at some point.

It's made up. On this one point, I had the "pleasure" of attending a lecture by a conservative African American gentleman around '91 (I think) that was at one point credited with inventing the frame of the "political correctness" movement in the negative. In other words, it did not exist until he and the "anti-PC crowd" made it up in order to fight it. I've looked for his book for years, but maybe someone can help me with a name. I've long since forgotten.

But being in marketing research, and literally working "behind the mirror" on Republican campaigns in Georgia, I've seen it. I've seen the manipulation Jake. You'd be amazed how much of what "we" think we think is exactly what we're told to think.

And hating "PC" (whatever that is) is one of them. It's a political frame invented and designed for knee jerk reaction among the largest possible segment one can target... basically, dumb white people (if I may be so blunt).

That's the conspiracy I see.

[edit on 29-6-2005 by RANT]

And we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

Everything you said was basically just "I'm part of the conspiracy."

You think there's a nerfarious plot to make you tense (which there is, but not by who you think). And you learn about it from all the pervasive plen-t-plaint news articles on it that you actively seek out and then disseminate to spread the passionate outrage. Uh huh. That proves it. They're closing in.

It's amazing that such a co-conspirator of the liberal media agenda as the UK Guardian is so forthcoming with it's plot to make you tense, but there ya go. I guess they slipped up and posted it right there for you to find. Along with all the others and the 24 hour AM radio and cable news coverage of how you and everyone else is getting screwed nefariously.

What is a majority that overtly runs everything to do?

[edit on 29-6-2005 by RANT]

Just to be clear, a vast left wing conspiracy, like a vast right wing one, is impossible. Too many people involved, there'll be leaks. In all honesty, I don't think there's an intentional hidden agenda, that's why intentional went in parens, not unintentional. It's feasable, but my house becoming the epicenter of a quantum singularity is also feasable.

I'm looking at this as I do most things, seeing what the potential long term effects could be. It is a strength and at the same time weakness, because while I'm looking at the forest I may walk into the tree I don't see. By bringing all of these situations together, I'm trying to make the same pattern I see visible to others. I also tend to see the worst case scenario (that's why I'm so good at what I do at work ), and maybe not a realistic one. It's very possible that after the baby boomers move out of power, all of this will go away (yeah, there's reasoning behind that, but the explanation would take another thread). It's also possible, though, that it will grow and grow until it's unstopable. Because I fear that potential end result so much, I feel I need to fight against it.

I am not a proponent of seporate but equal, and that's how I see this PC age moving society. That was not its intention, I believe it was begun because the people in power had lived through the 60s and felt racial guilt for being part of that minority which committed such attrocities against another people based purely on their tone of skin. I also don't think many of them see the potential danger of political correctness. America has always let our racists be racists. Because of that, people like David Duke can't pull one over on the population by saying they love all kinds of people while in secret plotting the return(?) of the ayrian race. If they're no longer able to say such things, though, you get plastic fascades on top of the already plastic fascade of a politician. You get hidden, passive agressive racism. Everyone I've talked to about this who is in a minority group has said that, if it must be there, they absloutly prefer racism out in the open. At least you know where someone stands that way. One of my brother-in-law's best friends was telling me the places he'd lived before coming to Hawai'i. (Hawai'i's awesome, by the way, racism is almost non-existant because everyone is a little of everything there. My brother-in-law is part Hawaian, part African-American, part Japanese, and part Dutch!) He told me that the worst place he had ever lived was San Fransisco because of the overwhelming, yet hidden, racism there. San Fransisco, the hub of progressives, in this guy's opinion, the most racist city he'd ever lived in. (Others he'd been in were Chicago, St. Louis, New York and Miami, not Pete's Grove, Alabama)

Political correctness:

Use of the term became popular in the early 1990s as part of a conservative challenge to curriculum and teaching methods on college campuses in the United States (D'Souza 1991; Berman 1992; Schultz 1993; Messer Davidow 1993, 1994; Scatamburlo 1998.) The word was taken from Marxist-Leninist vocabulary following the Russian Revolution, when it was used to describe the Party Line.


en.wikipedia.org...

So the actual term was coined by conservatives, but the idea existed before it was named. Just because conservatives have a problem with the idea of taking what was implied by the first ammendment, everyone's inalienable right to be offended, doesn't mean there's a grand conspiracy attached. We're human just like you, and live day by day just like you. We're not out to take over the world, we're out to fix problems we see in it, just like you. We, too, care about people. We just look further down the line to the end result instead of trying to placate people in the immediate. Personally, I think the goal oriented objective is the right way to go, but smarter people than I have said otherwise. It is, at it's core, an ideological difference. Is war justified if it will liberate people as a result? People will die if we go to war, and many will suffer. However, their children will know a far better world than they did. I think the first step to seeing politics, and not conspiracy, is by understanding why the other side believes what it does. You don't have to agree, and you probably won't, but if you understand the cause behind the actions, it might help in understanding that we're not inherently evil.

I want to point out that this is not a problem I see in only the left wing, it's everywhere. Just listen to Rush Rambo, he has no idea why liberals want to do what they want to do, so he assumes they're idiots out to destroy our country. Wrong, wrong, wrong! We all have the same goal, we just seek to achieve it differently. If we ever come to understand that, we may be able to stop the accusations and get to discussing handling the issues.

"But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong."

EDIT: Just wanted to give Lou Reed credit for the Rush Rambo name. I'm not clever enough to come up with that on my own Both of ya, if you ever have the chance to listen to his song, "Sex With Your Parents", I think you'll really enjoy it. Totally contrary to why I was just trying to say, but funny none the less. lyrics

[edit on 6-29-2005 by junglejake]

JungleJake,

George Carlin does this great bit on how we change names of things to make them sound "better".

For instance Shell Shock became Post Tramatic Stress Disorder. Manic Depression became Bipolar Disorder.

I do not want to offend anyone. Please before hand let me say that. Personally you can Brainstorm to your little hearts content.

And I have a MENTAL DISORDER AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.....but Brainstorming doesn't offend me. Hey maybe I'm nuts. Just a bit of sarcasm. Anyway George's take on this is hysterical.

ThoughtShowers sounds nuts