Political Correctness

Originally posted by TheTardis

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by TheTardis

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by Maslo
Maybe this is not a PC issue, I can see how this name could potentialy interfere with the military objective of winning the hearts and minds of local population. So is it really PC, or "mission first, fancy squandron names second"?

EDIT: and I despise political correctness, but it is arguable whether this is PC or not

edit on 25/5/12 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

Omg I actually agree with Maslo, the world had gone mad!

I do agree with this as well.. Like I said.. Probably not the best example I could have found, it just happens to be what I saw this morning that got me off on this tangent.. But I still would like to know if this was motivated by the fear of upsetting the enemy or upsetting those that we are protecting. But yes I can see how it could be counter productive. But I think it is so minimal and not something in the recent past.

Did you see what happened when that moronic pastor burned a Koran? It most definitely not of "minimal effect" to offend people we aren't even fighting.

Now.. Hold up a second on that. Dont believe the MSM on everything. The Koran was burned based on their customs and their directives of how to dispose of a Koran that has been desecrated. Our media blew that up and they used that against us. If a Koran is desecrated it is to be burned and it is a sin for them to do so. The Korans in question had been written in by them which again is a sin. They were using them to pass messages and we burned them just as the book directed. Dont confuse the situation.

That retard pastor clearly didn't burn it because it was desecrated, believing otherwise is stupid, don't you think?

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by TheTardis

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by TheTardis

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by Maslo
Maybe this is not a PC issue, I can see how this name could potentialy interfere with the military objective of winning the hearts and minds of local population. So is it really PC, or "mission first, fancy squandron names second"?

EDIT: and I despise political correctness, but it is arguable whether this is PC or not

edit on 25/5/12 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

Omg I actually agree with Maslo, the world had gone mad!

I do agree with this as well.. Like I said.. Probably not the best example I could have found, it just happens to be what I saw this morning that got me off on this tangent.. But I still would like to know if this was motivated by the fear of upsetting the enemy or upsetting those that we are protecting. But yes I can see how it could be counter productive. But I think it is so minimal and not something in the recent past.

Did you see what happened when that moronic pastor burned a Koran? It most definitely not of "minimal effect" to offend people we aren't even fighting.

Now.. Hold up a second on that. Dont believe the MSM on everything. The Koran was burned based on their customs and their directives of how to dispose of a Koran that has been desecrated. Our media blew that up and they used that against us. If a Koran is desecrated it is to be burned and it is a sin for them to do so. The Korans in question had been written in by them which again is a sin. They were using them to pass messages and we burned them just as the book directed. Dont confuse the situation.

That retard pastor clearly didn't burn it because it was desecrated, believing otherwise is stupid, don't you think?

No, the one he burned wasn't but the ones that our military burned that got blown up in the media and sparked all of this crap were. If it hadn't been made a big deal out of and our president going over there and apologizing it wouldn't have been copied here. We burned them as directed. The media here tried to fry the ones who did it. Our president went and apologized making us look week and some idiot here did the same thing here just for who knows what reasons. But if we had not made a big deal out of the other I doubt this one would have happened. It should have been a non issue.

reply to post by TheTardis


In some instances it has been shown that the people making the complaint and trying to get something changed on the grounds of it "offending" someone, are not part of the group it supposedly offends. There is a case in Oregon right now where the school board voted 5 - 1 in favor of a rule banning all Native mascots. They are threatening cutting funding to schools that do not comply.

This looks good on paper and sounds good as far as political correctness goes, but the local tribes have spoken out AGAINST it. They said they dont mind Native American mascots as long as they are respectful. What is offensive about a tasteful Native American mascot? Having a sports mascot that represents elite warriors, bravery, and strength is positive, not a negative.

What the tribes of Oregon really want is for the history of the local tribes to be taught in school. They have even stepped up and offered to work with the schools to help teach the history and come up with mascots that are respectful.

I really think what it really comes down to is fear. Someone MIGHT get upset, so better walk on eggshells. Its a lot easier to avoid the situation all together than it is to take the time and effort to do it right.

Source

DC

Political Correctness have destroyed this country in much the same way "Liability Claims" have. Everybody is so damned afraid of saying something or making a comment or being afraid of being sued because someone's feelings got hurt.

I am a Christian.. a Southerner... a "red nekked, countryboy" with a shot gun a rifle and a 4 wheel drive... literally. ATS and society in general make fun of people like me... BIG DEAL. I laugh with them and in certain instances reiforce their stereotypes on purpose. and then walk away to the bank laughing.

As for the marine Unit changing names from the Crusaders because it might offend csertain groups and enemies...ie Muslims...

The name of a military unit should offend and intimidate the enemy. this is why the SS used lighting bolt runes and skulls and cross bones...same with the black flag of pirates and bush wackers... the calvary sheild of the airborne... inspire and intimidate

In light of who we are fighting these days... the marine Unit should change it's name from Crusaders to WarPigs.

Most of the time Political Correctness has gone too far. Just like anything else moderation is key. You will never be able to satisfy every thin skinned person out there.That doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to practice a degree of sensitivity. Your two examples are actually pretty good examples of insensitivity. The Marine squadron in question does in fact act as a representative of the American people and as such it seems to me "Crusaders" isn't an idea insignia to that purpose. There are many other fearsome things they could choose to call themselves without giving the impression we are fighting a holy war.

The Redskins gets a bit murkier. Living in Cleveland this is something that comes up every few years. And despite the intent behind the Redskin and Indians monikers it isn't hard to see why they offend people. It does however get harder to see a legitimate complaint with the Braves, Chiefs and Blackhawks.to name just a few. In the cases of sports teams intent should be the measure of whether or not the name is appropriate. I can't seem to find any teams named with weak pathetic imagery in mind. But at the end of the day it all lays in the lens you choose to view such things through

Sorry, I dont consider it 'politically correct' to say that I dont want my tax dollars going to pay for a bunch of christian symbolism in the military.

I consider that Constitutionally Correct.

Crusade is a christian thing...oh, your all offended by the so called PC call to have it changed.

You no doubt would be singing a different tune if it was instead called "Jihad Crew" or something of that nature to give props to a different religion, then this thread would be the crying out of the "islamification" verses laughing at people being PC.


What is so disingenuious about people complaining about Political Correctness is that they will become giant babies if it goes against them, but if it promotes their flavor of ignorance, they will cheer for it and call anyone complaining a thin skinned baby.

I remember awhile back, their was a movement to have the Cleveland Indians, and the Washington Redskins change their mascots because it offended native Americans. I guess you can say the same for the Fighting Irish of Notre Dame,

Here are some questionable mascots that the NCAA feels are offensive...

The NCAA has demanded mascot justifications from several more schools that have identifiably ethnic or ideologically questionable mascots. The committee acted quickly to identify offending schools, Knickertwist said. "We didn't burden ourselves with investigating the origins of each offensive mascot, and why should we? We never have before," she said. "What, like we should presume the schools didn't intend for their own symbols and images to be hostile and abusive? Let them explain themselves to us. We are the NCAA." Schools the NCAA committee identified as likely having offensive ethnic mascots included: Alfred University (Saxons), Arkansas, Little Rock (Trojans), Cleveland State (Vikings), Edinboro University (Fighting Scots), Gordon College of Ga. (Highlanders), Gordon College of Mass. (Fighting Scots), Hofstra (Flying Dutchmen), Idaho (Vandals), Iona (Gaels), Iowa Central (Dutch), Louisiana Lafayette (Ragin' Cajuns), Luther College (Norse), Maryville College (Fighting Scots), Michigan State (Spartans), Monmouth College (Fighting Scots), New Mexico Tech (Pygmies), Northern Kentucky (Norse), Notre Dame (Fightin' Irish), Ohio Valley University (Fighting Scots), Portland State (Vikings), Southern Cal (Trojans), UNC-Greensboro (Spartans) and Wooster College (Fighting Scots).