# Political Correctness.



## Denv12 (Jan 20, 2018)

I am writing a dating advice book. One thing I didnt use so far is political correctness terms.I havent used anything with the word challenged in it.Instead I have use words like tall,short,overweight,slim,etc.I use the old words in the right way and respectable too.I just dont want to use the word challenged.It doesnt sound right. So far,I'm pleased with what I've written.


----------



## ironpony (Jan 21, 2018)

What's wrong with using challenged exactly?  I think this all depends on what context you would be using it in.


----------



## Denv12 (Jan 21, 2018)

I choose not to use those words. I think some people dont like political correctness so as I was writing I used the old terms. If I had to I would just write in rephrased sections of the book to include political correctness.The book isnt finished so I can still make changes.


----------



## dale (Jan 21, 2018)

Most people who use dating sites are kind of stupid and superficial. Maybe you should take the political correctness thing to a new level. There are so many stereotypes to choose from. Black girls got big asses
 Hindu girls like anal. Jewish girls love to give head. There are so many potential selling points. You just have to utilize them.


----------



## Denv12 (Jan 21, 2018)

Hi dale.
Thank you for your reply.
I like your idea.It would work too.Its got great potential.I'll research it.
Thanks for the suggestion.


----------



## Smith (Jan 21, 2018)

This thread was a breath of fresh air.

Yeah, modern parlance is retarded. If they're fat, they're fat. If the kettle's black, it isn't color challenged.

Write what you want to write Denv. I wish you luck!


----------



## escorial (Jan 21, 2018)

Hanna Ardent on thinking,judging and acting if you say to yourself who am I to judge...you are already lost...


----------



## Denv12 (Jan 21, 2018)

Smith said:


> This thread was a breath of fresh air.
> 
> Yeah, modern parlance is retarded. If they're fat, they're fat. If the kettle's black, it isn't color challenged.
> 
> Write what you want to write Denv. I wish you luck!


Hi Smith.

Thank you for your encouraging words.I like the old fashioned way.The word challanged just doesnt sound right.

Thanks again.
Denv12.


----------



## Denv12 (Jan 21, 2018)

Interesting point. Thank you escorial.


----------



## Sam (Jan 21, 2018)

When people can self-identify as a gazillion things, where would you even start trying to put that into words?

Personally, I identify as an Apache -- the attack helicopter, not the Indian tribe.


----------



## Birb (Jan 21, 2018)

don't worry about political correctness, if you do you won't be able to say anything. Just write.


----------



## bookmasta (Jan 21, 2018)

Denv12 said:


> I am writing a dating advice book. One thing I didnt use so far is political correctness terms.I havent used anything with the word challenged in it.Instead I have use words like tall,short,overweight,slim,etc.I use the old words in the right way and respectable too.I just dont want to use the word challenged.It doesnt sound right. So far,I'm pleased with what I've written.



I'm not really really anything that could be interpreted as being offensive, not without direct quotes and more context.


----------



## aj47 (Jan 21, 2018)

Sam said:


> Personally, I identify as an Apache -- the attack helicopter, not the Indian tribe.



I'm glad you clarified.  My first thought was the webserver.


----------



## Skodt (Jan 22, 2018)

Write non-offensively without sugar coating. I think most people aren't too concerned with using overweight or weight challenged. So if you write weight challenged or overweight the general person is not going to care too much either way. You will lose a few readers any way you go, but that is no matter what you write.


----------



## Sam (Jan 22, 2018)

How does one write "non-offensively"?


----------



## Denv12 (Jan 22, 2018)

Thanks Sam.  What a laugh.
As an aviation enthusiast I recognised the apache.
I'm content without the politically correctness.


----------



## Terry D (Jan 22, 2018)

Sam said:


> How does one write "non-offensively"?



You don't use your middle finger.


----------



## Skodt (Jan 22, 2018)

I would assume if you are writing a non-fiction piece that you take into consideration all peoples views. Not sure what is not understood? Just don't overtly be offensive for the sake of saying something.


----------



## Denv12 (Jan 22, 2018)

Thanks Skodt.
Yes,non fiction.I'm writing a dating advice book.Covering as many topics as needed.
I wont be trying to offend anyone.


----------



## Ultraroel (Jan 23, 2018)

I write for myself and my characters. If the readers don't like it, they can take a hike. I'm not ever gonna bother with all this new-age SJW criteria. If I write a black character, I'll do it even if I'm white. If I write a talking banana, I will do it even though I am human. This political correctness is a social cancer imo that should be cut off and dried out asap


----------



## andrewclunn (Jan 23, 2018)

"Hey woman of acceptable dating age.  Do I have your affirmative consent to continue this interaction?"  So hot.

"Your mere visual stimuli cause hormonal responses that compel me to attempt to court you."  Erotic.

"The only privilege I want to keep is that of your company."  Much virtue.  Make sexy.


----------



## Smith (Jan 23, 2018)

andrewclunn said:


> "Hey woman of acceptable dating age.  Do I have your affirmative consent to continue this interaction?"  So hot.
> 
> "Your mere visual stimuli cause hormonal responses that compel me to attempt to court you."  Erotic.
> 
> "The only privilege I want to keep is that of your company."  Much virtue.  Make sexy.



"Before we do this, I want you to be okay with one thing..."

"Sure, anything baby."

"Say my name and tell me you like it over and over again, _really_ loud. The neighbors need to know you're in constant consent."

"As long as you sign the contract."

"Deal."


----------



## Pete_C (Jan 23, 2018)

Sam said:


> How does one write "non-offensively"?



I think in this instance it might be considered offensive to say, for example, that when looking for a potential date, fat birds might be easier. Instead a PC reader only needs to know that if opting for a partner offering comfort rather than agility, it is best to be prepared with a big bag of doughnuts.

Writing like this comes natural to me; I've been politically correct for years now and it's done me no harm.


----------



## RhythmOvPain (Jan 23, 2018)

Smith said:


> "Before we do this, I want you to be okay with one thing..."
> 
> "Sure, anything baby."
> 
> ...



LMAO


----------



## Sam (Jan 23, 2018)

Skodt said:


> I would assume if you are writing a non-fiction piece that you take into consideration all peoples views. Not sure what is not understood? Just don't overtly be offensive for the sake of saying something.



You want me to take everyone's views into consideration? How would you suggest I go about doing that? 

I only know my views on things; I don't know anyone else's, nor do I particularly care to find out. This has got to be the most barmy thing I've heard in my life. You really want people to go out, find out everyone's views, and then write stuff that won't offend them? So I shouldn't write about Catholics because it'll offend Protestants, but then I can't write about Protestants because it'll offend Catholics. Can't write about Democrats or Republicans because it'll offend one or the other. Can't write about men or women because it'll offend trans people. Can't write about white people because it'll offend black people. 

Trying to define who will or won't get offended by something I'm writing is like trying to bite my own teeth.


----------



## Denv12 (Jan 23, 2018)

Thanks Ultraroel.

I like your reply.You describe how it makes me feel too.I just want to write a genuine book without all that nonsense.I know I'm doing a good thing and your reply is comforting.Thank you.I appreciate your reply.
Denv12.


----------



## Skodt (Jan 24, 2018)

I won't argue your opinion. However, yes I do expect a writer, who is writing a non-fiction book, to do research on their audience and their targets. Did I say anywhere that no one at all would be offended? If that is what I conveyed then I presented the message poorly. The fact that you don't care is your choice and I say if that is what you want to do then jump forth with that. I, however, gave my own varying opinion and find that I would enjoy it more if someone took the time to understand different aspects and views. Do they have to conform to those ideas and views? No, absolutely not; that would be silly to assume. They can take those varied ideas and know what a majority of people would find non-offensive and appealing. I think it is obvious that someone somewhere will find something to be offended about in all works, I merely say portray it the best you can and that is the best anyone can ask for. If you don't agree then you don't and that's your choice.


----------



## Denv12 (Jan 25, 2018)

Skodt,it was never my intention to offend you when I responded.

I'm amazed at the various responses to this post.

There are likely to be people who will read my book that will be offended by something in my book.I wont be surprised there.No matter what I write,no matter how carefully I phrase things there are those who are going to take offence at something. There are many things a book like this needs,I'm trying to incorporate a variety of topics that will help people. After reading various books on the subject of dating advice,I got some idea what I want to provide.


----------



## Garvan (Jan 25, 2018)

Well... I won't be posting anything on this forum. Some of the comments here go far beyond being simply disturbing.


----------



## Smith (Jan 25, 2018)

Garvan said:


> Well... I won't be posting anything on this forum. Some of the comments here go far beyond being simply disturbing.



Can't really do much for you unless you can define what you think is "disturbing".

Every forum you go to Garvan, you will come across posts that you don't agree with, including ones that go beyond being simply disturbing, to the point that they are disturbingly complex.

Want to know another disturbing fact (assuming you haven't unfortunately already made good on your promise to leave us)?: the Nazis were humans. You and I are humans, too.

If you're serious about going elsewhere, I'm sorry and wish you the best of luck. However, I warn you that you will never be safe from people you don't agree with.

Sincerely,

-Kyle


----------



## Garvan (Jan 25, 2018)

Honestly - if you can't see how some of the sentiments shown in this thread are sooooo wrong and just plain horrifying then me pointing them out to you isn't going to help you. 

True I am not sure that any of you have it in you to HELP anyone. If this is how people feel about other peoples emotions then... Yeah, this forum is showing signs of being so broke no number of psychiatrists could fix it.  

In fact - just go read back your response to me. Really no need for the tone - aren't we all supposed to love being challenged? That is what you said in the other thread!


----------



## Ultraroel (Jan 25, 2018)

Garvan said:


> Honestly - if you can't see how some of the sentiments shown in this thread are sooooo wrong and just plain horrifying then me pointing them out to you isn't going to help you.
> 
> True I am not sure that any of you have it in you to HELP anyone. If this is how people feel about other peoples emotions then... Yeah, this forum is showing signs of being so broke no number of psychiatrists could fix it.
> 
> In fact - just go read back your response to me. Really no need for the tone - aren't we all supposed to love being challenged? That is what you said in the other thread!




Uugh, the common: It's not my job to educate you argument. The way you behave it seems you think that it's my or the job of anyone else to cater to your feelings and emotions cause you think being offended is something that happens cause of what someone else says. No.

The current trend to avoid any kind of offense, stereotype or different opinion cause the mainstream might not agree is absolutely ridiculous and I will not cater to this trend with my own writing. Political correctness is killing democracy and the right of free speech, cause some people think that their right to be offended trumps my right to speak my mind. While in my opinion, free speech should trump your or anyone elses insecurities or sensitivities


----------



## bdcharles (Jan 25, 2018)

Garvan said:


> Honestly - if you can't see how some of the sentiments shown in this thread are sooooo wrong and just plain horrifying then me pointing them out to you isn't going to help you.
> 
> True I am not sure that any of you have it in you to HELP anyone. If this is how people feel about other peoples emotions then... Yeah, this forum is showing signs of being so broke no number of psychiatrists could fix it.
> 
> In fact - just go read back your response to me. Really no need for the tone - aren't we all supposed to love being challenged? That is what you said in the other thread!





Ultraroel said:


> Uugh, the common: It's not my job to educate  you argument. The way you behave it seems you think that it's my or the  job of anyone else to cater to your feelings and emotions cause you  think being offended is something that happens cause of what someone  else says. No.
> 
> The current trend to avoid any kind of offense, stereotype or different  opinion cause the mainstream might not agree is absolutely ridiculous  and I will not cater to this trend with my own writing. Political  correctness is killing democracy and the right of free speech, cause  some people think that their right to be offended trumps my right to  speak my mind. While in my opinion, free speech should trump your or  anyone elses insecurities or sensitivities






In order to show you all - as on The Other Thread - how helpful some of us can be, I am going to bring out the big guns here. Yes, you all heard that right. The. Big. Guns. Am I going to admonish anybody? Gods, no. Shall I be launching into some sort of holier-than-thou tirade? Certainly not! Rain down insults and vitriol like a season of acid rain? Ha! No, I am going to go bigger, deeper and harder than any of those things. 


I am going to...



I am going to...




Yes. I am going to deploy a _choice serifed font_ and a _wordily pretentious delivery style._



Political correctness, like anything on the net, is such a hot potato topic that you could conclude that it is almost barely worth mentioning. Even the very words send one into paroxysms. Why, one could simply - simply reference all the past arguments that have happened over it rather than go through the tired rigmarole of having them again. Some people get up in arms about it; others prefer to equivocate. We know that. The reasons for that will probably never be known unless you dig deep into everyone's pasts - and who has the time? The inclination? The means, land'sakes, the _means_? With time, and patience, and when the dust settles over the scorched land and green shoots peek through once again, one will find one's village, locate one's tribe in the brackish Amazonian backwaters of internet discourse. Now, they may be a peaceful forest dwelling commune, doodling on parchments and sending up prayers for rain. Or perhaps a bloodthirsty mob with a taste for the meat still a-twitching. Some will present soon, others will hang back. But like any traveller, one makes their mark in time, finds their niche. For quality can't be rushed. It, like the onion, has layers.



So there. Let's sign off with a happy happy comic sans, mmm?


----------



## Smith (Jan 25, 2018)

Garvan said:


> Honestly - if you can't see how some of the sentiments shown in this thread are sooooo wrong and just plain horrifying then me pointing them out to you isn't going to help you.
> 
> True I am not sure that any of you have it in you to HELP anyone. If this is how people feel about other peoples emotions then... Yeah, this forum is showing signs of being so broke no number of psychiatrists could fix it.
> 
> In fact - just go read back your response to me. Really no need for the tone - aren't we all supposed to love being challenged? That is what you said in the other thread!



I don't need your help. I was going to offer you my opinion, but I needed to know what you thought was disturbing first. What's disturbing to you may not be disturbing to me.

There was no negative tone in my response to you at all. You're imagining that bit.


----------



## Garvan (Jan 25, 2018)

Smith said:


> I don't need your help. I was going to offer you my opinion, but I needed to know what you thought was disturbing first. What's disturbing to you may not be disturbing to me.
> 
> There was no negative tone in my response to you at all. You're imagining that bit.



lol, no you weren't and if you can't even hear yourself then truely nothing I say will even make the slightest bit of difference.


----------



## Garvan (Jan 25, 2018)

Ultraroel said:


> Uugh, the common: It's not my job to educate you argument. The way you behave it seems you think that it's my or the job of anyone else to cater to your feelings and emotions cause you think being offended is something that happens cause of what someone else says. No.
> 
> The current trend to avoid any kind of offense, stereotype or different opinion cause the mainstream might not agree is absolutely ridiculous and I will not cater to this trend with my own writing. Political correctness is killing democracy and the right of free speech, cause some people think that their right to be offended trumps my right to speak my mind. While in my opinion, free speech should trump your or anyone elses insecurities or sensitivities



Oh... one of THOSE... yeah this forum is doomed.


----------



## bdcharles (Jan 25, 2018)

Smith said:


> I don't need your help. I was going to offer you my opinion, but I needed to know what you thought was disturbing first. What's disturbing to you may not be disturbing to me.
> 
> There was no negative tone in my response to you at all. You're imagining that bit.



Smithers, I will say that I too am getting some "vibes" from your responses. On the plus side this means you're a good writer and your passion comes out in your words! It's all about controlling the flow of intensity, being cognizant of its power and using it to the deisred effect.


----------



## Smith (Jan 25, 2018)

Garvan said:


> lol, no you weren't and if you can't even hear yourself then truely nothing I say will even make the slightest bit of difference.



Pretty presumptuous of you to think that I'm not aware of the intended tone of my own posts. With all due respect, you're wrong. The tone you're getting is from how you're reading it.

Tone is often easy to misunderstand on the internet.



bdcharles said:


> Smithers, I will say that I too am getting some "vibes" from your responses. On the plus side this means you're a good writer and your passion comes out in your words! It's all about controlling the flow of intensity, being cognizant of its power and using it to the deisred effect.



Well, I'm sorry charles, but that's not my intention. If what I've said so far has these "vibes" you mention, then literally anything anybody says can be misinterpreted this way and projected to be something that it isn't.

It's worth pointing out that when there is a dispute about "tone" on the internet, a place notorious for tonal misunderstandings, that the benefit of the doubt is usually given to the person who made the post once they clarify their intentions. I give the benefit of the doubt all the time. If I didn't, I'd have a discussion like this every single day, and that would get old very quickly.

I'm sitting here enjoying a coffee, a breakfast sandwich, listening to some relaxing lo-fi music, _and trying to get to the bottom of something because I didn't want somebody to leave the forums_. If I'm the enemy here then I honestly don't know what to say lol. I guess I'll just have to sit here and keep repeating myself until you are convinced or something.


----------



## Pete_C (Jan 25, 2018)

Garvan, no offence meant, but are you one of those people that goes through life just waiting for a chance to be offended?

It's interesting how the 'I'm so offended' movement has been around for centuries yet has never proved overwhelmingly popular with those who have the ability to think for themselves. Actually, the various movements throughout history (political, religious, social) that seem to be most offended are often proven to the the most offensive, by some significant margin.


----------



## Garvan (Jan 25, 2018)

Pete_C said:


> Garvan, no offence meant, but are you one of those people that goes through life just waiting for a chance to be offended?
> 
> It's interesting how the 'I'm so offended' movement has been around for centuries yet has never proved overwhelmingly popular with those who have the ability to think for themselves. Actually, the various movements throughout history (political, religious, social) that seem to be most offended are often proven to the the most offensive, by some significant margin.



Ah...  I do so love writers, so predictable. 

FYI I am not easily offended, I understand people too well for that. Unfortunately, what makes me a good writer, is also what makes me allergic to bullshit and not very understanding of people who look down on others or can't even be assed to take responsibility for their own words of actions. Which is what this thread is about really, one long excuse as to why one should just say what you want to say and fuck everyone who doesn't like it. 

Free speech is not code for "I can say anything" because all of you are dancing on the edge of justifying things like hate speech and what comes from hate speech? Violence, terrorism, the KKK hanging innocent people in trees because of the colour of their skin. Detention camps and people marching to take rights away from women and anyone not white and male is your version of "free speech". One where anything and everything goes until it blows up in your face or is ISIS calling against the western world.

So, please, don't try and put this on me and say that I am harming democracy. Trust me what has been said in this thread has done more harm to your precious democracy than my opinion of this thread ever could.

Also... really the best reason you can think of for me objections is that I am offended because I am an in the box thinker? No... I am a big picture person who has seen far to much of humanity to not see what will come of the opinions shown in this thread.


----------



## Pete_C (Jan 25, 2018)

Garvan said:


> Ah...  I do so love writers, so predictable.
> 
> ...
> 
> what makes me a good writer



I knew you were going to say that.


----------



## Sam (Jan 25, 2018)

Garvan said:


> Well... I won't be posting anything on this forum. Some of the comments here go far beyond being simply disturbing.



I see. 

You wish to impose your way of thinking onto everyone else so that they only post, or write, in a manner that doesn't offend you? It's this belief that represents the height of contemporary ignorance. Your right to not be offended, if such a thing even exists, is not greater in any way than my right to free speech. 

This isn't something new. Political correctness has been around, in one form or another, for the better part of a hundred years. The world seems to be slowly but surely veering full circle towards the censorship rife in the first five or six decades of the twentieth century, when troglodytes like Joseph McCarthy banned books by the truckload. I, and many other writers, am not going back there. No amount of gadflying from overly sensitive snowflakes will ever make me change my mind on that. I write, and will continue to write, the way I wish to write and not the way decreed as okay by the PC mob. I will never bend a knee to political correctness. I don't care who demands it, or how powerful they are, I will go to my grave writing the truth and not some fairy version of events written in such a way as to offend as few people as possible. 

George Orwell predicted a lot of things, but one lesser-known quote of his sums up the entirety of political correctness: "In times of great deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act".


----------



## bdcharles (Jan 25, 2018)

Sam said:


> You wish to impose your way of thinking onto everyone else so that they only post, or write, in a manner that doesn't offend you?



I wouldn't say admitting being upset by something is the same as wishing to eradicate it. The OP is saying how he feels, you're saying how you feel, I probably stick my oar in, someone over there says what's on their mind, everyone gets their say and everyone's happy. Free speech reign supreme, yay!

I actually mistyped and wrote "free sheep" there. 

Think about that for a second.

Free sheep...


----------



## Smith (Jan 25, 2018)

bdcharles said:


> I wouldn't say admitting being upset by something is the same as wishing to eradicate it. The OP is saying how he feels, you're saying how you feel, I probably stick my oar in, someone over there says what's on their mind, everyone gets their say and everyone's happy. Free speech reign supreme, yay!
> 
> I actually mistyped and wrote "free sheep" there.
> 
> ...



In my opinion, it isn't a matter of disagreeing with certain things. *For example, as a starting point for proper conduct, I think it's unacceptable to critique the person and their writing ability when in the workshops. Critique should strictly be about the work for it to remain constructive.*

The difference is my posts aren't filled with presumptuous, inaccurate statements and claims about people and things I don't know about. You know, like when somebody says to you, "I don't want to see you leave just because you disagree with a minority of people", and you call them a liar, delusionally treating everything that they say as an attack.

That is the best way to make somebody stop caring about whether or not they leave. To audaciously treat everything they say as a lie. It'd actually aggravate me if it wasn't such a hilarious, textbook example of gaslighting.

And now so that there's no more confusion, bdcharles, this is what those "vibes" actually look like.


----------



## Sam (Jan 25, 2018)

> I wouldn't say admitting being upset by something is the same as wishing to eradicate it. The OP is saying how he feels, you're saying how you feel, someone over there says what's on their mind, everyone gets their say and everyone's happy. Free speech reign supreme, yay!
> 
> I actually mistyped and wrote "free sheep" there.
> 
> ...




The idea of free speech isn't a fantastical construct. It's rooted in the very discussion we're having here. In order for you to challenge what I just said, you have to be afforded the platform and the freedom to respond without duress to my statement. What you just said, however, could be construed (if I were so inclined) as offensive towards me. It isn't, but for the sake of argument let's say it is. Why am I not afforded the same right to not be offended by your response -- because my opinion is somewhat more extreme than normal? 

This is the fundamental flaw in political correctness. You're willing, in theory, to risk offending me in pursuit of what you believe to be correct, but why should you have to right to impinge on my right to not be offended? This is the sinkhole that political correctness has built its foundation on. 

In order to be able to think, one must risk being offensive.


----------



## bdcharles (Jan 25, 2018)

Smith said:


> In my opinion, it isn't a matter of disagreeing with certain things. As a starting point for proper conduct, I think it's unacceptable to critique the person and their ability. Critique should strictly be about the work.
> 
> The difference is my posts aren't filled with presumptuous, inaccurate statements and claims about people and things I don't know about. You know, like when somebody says to you, "I don't want to see you leave because you disagree with a minority of people", and you call them a liar.
> 
> That is the best way to make somebody stop caring about whether or not they leave. To audaciously treat everything you say as a lie. It'd actually aggravate me if it wasn't so hilarious.



Ah but where does the person end, and the ability or the work begin? To me, it is all connected, though of course if you have to point out a nit in one it is certainly useful to do it in such a way that your point gets read right, as you say.

I was reading the other day about cognitive dissonance. That's where one bit of info you receive conflicts with another. It can colour one's perception. So it's probably that. I think it happens alot, actually, in life. It's quite handy to be aware of it when it happens; sort of a useful tool in the writer's toolkit. You can really create some juicy conflicts and tensions that way.


----------



## Smith (Jan 25, 2018)

bdcharles said:


> Ah but where does the person end, and the ability or the work begin? To me, it is all connected, though of course if you have to point out a nit in one it is certainly useful to do it in such a way that your point gets read right, as you say.
> 
> I was reading the other day about cognitive dissonance. That's where one bit of info you receive conflicts with another. It can colour one's perception. So it's probably that. I think it happens alot, actually, in life. It's quite handy to be aware of it when it happens; sort of a useful tool in the writer's toolkit. You can really create some juicy conflicts and tensions that way.



You don't make direct attacks on the writer and question their capability, and instead opt to simply stick to the context of the work they've presented. As a writer, I understand being deeply invested in what you write, and being passionate about the craft. If critique of my work is solely about what I've shared, I don't take it personally.

Maybe that's hard to do for some people since art is an extension of the self. But I have better things to do than treat every single response as a potentially personal attack. However, if it is personal, I defend myself. I don't cry.

The only time I can see critique about the work getting personal, is when you have some idiot of a studio executive making braindead changes to your manuscript. I'll always retain control over what I create (that doesn't mean I won't submit my work to an editor or seriously listen to the advice of an agent). That being said, every critique here is just an opinion ultimately, and I take solace in the fact that they don't have any real power other than not buying it if it's ever published.


----------



## bdcharles (Jan 25, 2018)

Sam said:


> [/COLOR]
> 
> The idea of free speech isn't a fantastical construct. It's rooted in the very discussion we're having here. In order for you to challenge what I just said, you have to be afforded the platform and the freedom to respond without duress to my statement. What you just said, however, could be construed (if I were so inclined) as offensive towards me. It isn't, but for the sake of argument let's say it is. Why am I not afforded the same right to not be offended by your response -- because my opinion is somewhat more extreme than normal?
> 
> ...



I definitely agree. But inherent in free speech are a bundle of paradoxes (paradoces?) and misconstruings. Where does one person's freedom end and another's begin? What's the overlap? If someone, based on some internet post, went round to the poster's house and, I dunno, put some duct tape over their mouth and keyboard or whatever, that would be an imposition. But arguing vociferously? As you say, it's just words. The solution? Use bigger words. Okay, maybe not that but you get the picture. I suppose, ultimately, that is exactly what is happening here and in the whole PC arena. It is just a conversation. I mean, I am unaware of any PC person actively trying to silence anyone. They are just expressing their bit, with words. But of course words have power. Writers know that. People worry, I suppose, that words will beget action.

Though to be fair the "formal" definition of free speech is the right to mouth off to your government without fear of being banged up. I don't think it covers interactions between the general populus. That's why the world's in a mess! *shakes fist at an indifferent sun*


----------



## Smith (Jan 25, 2018)

bdcharles said:


> I definitely agree. But inherent in free speech are a bundle of paradoxes (paradoces?) and misconstruings. Where does one person's freedom end and another's begin? What's the overlap? If someone, based on some internet post, went round to the poster's house and, I dunno, put some duct tape over their mouth and keyboard or whatever, that would be an imposition. But arguing vociferously? As you say, it's just words. The solution? Use bigger words. Okay, maybe not that but you get the picture. I suppose, ultimately, that is exactly what is happening here and in the whole PC arena. It is just a conversation. I mean, I am unaware of any PC person actively trying to silence anyone. They are just expressing their bit, with words. But of course words have power. Writers know that. People worry, I suppose, that words will beget action.
> 
> Though to be fair the "formal" definition of free speech is the right to mouth off to your government without fear of being banged up. I don't think it covers interactions between the general populus. That's why the world's in a mess! *shakes fist at an indifferent sun*



Speaking for myself here, it's the sentiment and the implication of the matter. On a private forum, or in any other private setting, these rules are different. But in public discourse, free speech reigns.

What's not accepted is if your speech incites violence, or you make a threat. That has nothing to do with bigotry or being offensive, which are completely irrelevant.

If they weren't irrelevant, it weakens people. Protecting somebody from a harsh but honest and impersonal critique here simply because they find it offensive, is not going to do them any favors when they have something published and a couple of papers write reviews that are worse than anything any of us would have said. If they quit now, they'd quit then. Nothing would change.

However, if they develop a thick skin. If they don't let their ego get in the way of improving their writing. If they learn to ignore what's unhelpful and only listen to what *is* helpful. If they don't only get to listen to what they want to hear. They'll not only be a better writer, but perhaps even a successful one, who won't give up their craft because one person writes a hit-piece about their book in a paper, or because of some mean reviews on Amazon.


----------



## bdcharles (Jan 25, 2018)

Sam said:


> [/COLOR]
> 
> The idea of free speech isn't a fantastical construct. It's rooted in the very discussion we're having here. In order for you to challenge what I just said, you have to be afforded the platform and the freedom to respond without duress to my statement. What you just said, however, could be construed (if I were so inclined) as offensive towards me. It isn't, but for the sake of argument let's say it is. Why am I not afforded the same right to not be offended by your response -- because my opinion is somewhat more extreme than normal?
> 
> ...



You are afforded the same platform, so I don't think there is a flaw. Plain spoken person A says thing X; PC-sensitive person B says "you can't say X, I am offended". Person A then says "you can't say that, because of free speech." But what has changed? Nothing. That is how the system looks when it is working. No-one has been silenced. All that's happened is speech. Yes, everyone is now offended but that doesn't matter because it will pass, it's kind of a notional condition. It is, quite possibly, barely the beginning of the discussion that actually needs to happen to address whatever the problem is, if it needs addressing.




Smith said:


> Speaking for myself here, it's the sentiment and the implication of the matter. On a private forum, or in any other private setting, these rules are different. But in public discourse, free speech reigns.
> 
> What's not accepted is if your speech incites violence, or you make a threat. That has nothing to do with bigotry or being offensive, which are completely irrelevant.
> 
> If they weren't irrelevant, it takes away other vestiges of an individual's freedom, which is to defend themselves. It weakens them. Protecting somebody from a harsh but honest and impersonal critique here, is not going to do them any favors when they have something published and a couple of papers write reviews that are worse than anything any of us would have said.



No, threats and incitement are not acceptable, I agree. And I am heartened because I rarely see them in online discussions. Relating to critique I have read many accounts of where people give up writing because they receive a harsh crit. On one hand we could tell them to toughen up, and they should, but on the other hand, how will they know how to toughen up without a guiding hand. It is all about pitching to our audience to get the most out of them. Yes, we may only have one post to go on but them's the breaks, that's our chance to influence another writer in a positive direction.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Jan 25, 2018)

Sam said:


> You want me to take everyone's views into consideration? How would you suggest I go about doing that?



Well, he said it right there in his post: Don't be overtly offensive.

As writers, we all know many, many ways to convey something.  As humans, we all have a decent idea about what the average, sensible person would consider offensive - or at the very least, the hot buttons, like racially charged language, aren't surprising to us.  As communicators, we have a responsibility to make sure our message is clear.  Different people do this in different ways; for example, I don't use profanity in my work, because I don't feel it accomplishes anything, and I view it as a crutch.  (If the best way I can convey someone is mad is by having them curse, perhaps I'm not a very imaginative author.)  And yet, I still have violence, and heartbreak, and loss, and pain, and many other things that are unpleasant and undesirable.  My work isn't G-rated, but it's also not coarse for the sake of being coarse.

Everything we write should have a point.  If that point is solely to offend - that is, if we are consciously and purposely being offensive in our writing - maybe it should be left out.


----------



## Sam (Jan 25, 2018)

And how would I know what is or isn't overtly offensive, Gamer?

You're American, right? Do you use the word 'fanny' in America, by any chance? Tell me what it means to you, if you'd be so kind.


----------



## Smith (Jan 25, 2018)

bdcharles said:


> You are afforded the same platform, so I don't think there is a flaw.



Maybe I'm missing something (and again, not speaking for Sam here; I just thought the discussion was interesting), but it seems to me that one person is actually advocating for the removal of the platform, or essentially swiping the rug out from under their own feet. One, small, independent occurrence of the conversation you describe charles, I don't think can be generalized to say that the conversation is ultimately irrelevant because it doesn't have far-reaching implications. Sorry if I misunderstood you, but that carefree attitude seems to be the same attitude that shortly precedes a totalitarian form of government that has defined the allowable discourse and re-written the dictionaries.

On the internet it's just a "friendly match" to use an unintentionally oxymoronic phrase from soccer. However, many circles are having these very same discussions - businesses, legislators, etc. - and it stops becoming a laughing matter.

And at risk of being pedantic, it isn't "you can't say that, because of free speech". It's, "I disagree with you because I believe in free speech." I try to never say people can't say something, unless I add some sort of qualifier ("you can't say x when you don't know the person" or "when you admit the contrary" etc.) In those circumstances I'm not literally saying they aren't allowed to say something, but rather that they shouldn't because it isn't logically sound.



> No, threats and incitement are not acceptable, I agree. And I am heartened because I rarely see them in online discussions. Relating to critique I have read many accounts of where people give up writing because they receive a harsh crit. On one hand we could tell them to toughen up, and they should, but on the other hand, how will they know how to toughen up without a guiding hand. It is all about pitching to our audience to get the most out of them. Yes, we may only have one post to go on but them's the breaks, that's our chance to influence another writer in a positive direction.



Good point, and I fully agree with you. I'm not saying we need to be intentionally harsh in our critiques as some sort of shit test. But I'm not buying this whole "I'm offended" tripe. Never have, never will, for the sole reason that everybody finds different things offensive, sometimes to the point of self-contradiction.


----------



## bdcharles (Jan 25, 2018)

Smith said:


> Maybe I'm missing something (and again, not speaking for Sam here; I just thought the discussion was interesting), but it seems to me that one person is actually advocating for the removal of the platform, or essentially swiping the rug out from under their own feet.



Oh, I didn't see that. What was said? But even then, does it matter? Until they come along and pull the plug, it's just talk. Heat of the moment words. Though I do know that, for me, sometimes the brain cells that would fire if someone were actually saying or doing something, fire even if I can just imagine them say it, or if I think they may be thinking it. It sounds nuts, but those 2 often feel quite similar, and boy does it keep me awake at night.





Smith said:


> Good point, and I fully agree with you. I'm not saying we need to be intentionally harsh in our critiques as some sort of shit test. But I'm not buying this whole "I'm offended" tripe. Never have, never will.



Offendedness is a spectrum. Once I read in an internet forum that someone thought I had written a run-on sentence, whereas in fact I hadn't. I wouldn't go so far as to say I was offended but I definitely felt _something_, and those neurons started firing again.

Still hurts to this day, actually. Run-on sentence, bah! Comma-splice, hah! I suspect the problem was I had written a sentence of more than five words which caused their BRAIN TO EXPLODE.


----------



## Smith (Jan 25, 2018)

bdcharles said:


> Oh, I didn't see that. What was said? But even then, does it matter? Until they come along and pull the plug, it's just talk. Heat of the moment words.



(Sorry, I edited my previous post too late!)

On the internet it's just a "friendly match" to use an unintentionally oxymoronic phrase from soccer. However, many circles are having these very same discussions - businesses, legislators, etc. - and it stops becoming a laughing matter. I think it's a mistake to not recognize the potential seriousness of the conversation.

And at risk of being pedantic, it isn't "you can't say that, because of free speech". That'd be contradictory.

It's, "I disagree with you because I believe in free speech." I try to never say people can't say something, unless I add some sort of qualifier ("you can't say x when you don't know the person" or "when you admit the contrary" etc.) In those circumstances I'm not literally saying they aren't allowed to say something, but rather that they shouldn't because it isn't logically sound.


----------



## bdcharles (Jan 25, 2018)

Smith said:


> And at risk of being pedantic, it isn't "you can't say that, because of free speech". It's, "I disagree with you because I believe in free speech."



Ah but the implication of that is that the other person doesn't believe in it. Or things may be interpreted that way. In fact they are using their right to free speech to express some sense or other of hurt. Them saying "you can't say that"  and them taking steps to ensure that "you can't say that" are two different things. Yes words can lead to actions with devastating consequences. Human history is littered with examples, and we'd have to look at each to see what camp has what kind of track record. But far more frequent is the instances where they don't lead to action, and remain just talk. They remain well within the purview of free speech, and going back to that, I really don't see attempts at verbal curtailment that often; it's more like "that's offensive" - which is subjective and, well, everyone presumably feels upset at something some of the time. Fundamentally it isn't a competition to see who can be the most right. It's about thrashing out a workable understanding that allows both parties the same degree of expression.




> One, small, independent occurrence of the conversation you describe  charles, I don't think can be generalized to say that the conversation  is ultimately irrelevant because it doesn't have far-reaching  implications. Sorry if I misunderstood you, but that carefree attitude  seems to be the same attitude that shortly precedes a totalitarian form  of government that has defined the allowable discourse and re-written  the dictionaries.



Okay I have to refer you to my brain exploding comment because that's what's about to happen to meeeeEEEBANG!  I am struggling a bit with this here ... sorry.


----------



## Smith (Jan 25, 2018)

bdcharles said:


> Ah but the implication of that is that the other person doesn't believe in it. Or things may be interpreted that way. In fact they are using their right to free speech to express some sense or other of hurt. Them saying "you can't say that"  and them taking steps to ensure that "you can't say that" are two different things.



I don't think it's an implication. When a person says "you can't say that because it's offensive" I take it literally. It's a contradiction to the very platform that allows them to say that. And by making the qualifier "offensive", suddenly everything is off the table.

There's nothing flippant about this in my estimation. If you simply wanted to say, "That offends me and I would appreciate it if you wouldn't say that when you and I are conversing," you wouldn't say the equivalent of, "It should be illegal for you to say that."

I don't know how much you keep up with politics, but this is a hot topic. When something can't be said "because it's offensive", people lose their jobs over it. They're doxxed and threatened. They have their funding taken away because it isn't legal for them to be technically censored *yet*. They can be fined. They can go to jail.

Just because somebody who says it here on the forums can't actually do anything about it, doesn't mean it isn't the exact same thing.

It's nothing more than "Nobody can criticize the king." masquerading around as supposedly trying to protect people's feelings. Nobody benefits from it except the person who wields it. Not even those who are supposedly being "protected" from offense benefit from such an abuse, because it infantalizes them.


----------



## Kevin (Jan 25, 2018)

Bd- in corporate curtailment is happening. They are requiring all employees to undergo education. To give an example, if emplotyee A claims offense at something employee B says it is to be brought to a third party's ( HR's) attention and then brought back to B. B may not discuss, may not explain, deny, rebut, protest, or complain in any manner whatsoever. There is to be no discussion of circumstance, context, or bringing up of facts; no counter-claim of offense, either.  The proper response is "I hear what you are saying." That is now corporate policy. Any failure to follow corporate policy can result in termination. End of story. So there is your curtailment/compulsory modification happening now.


----------



## Terry D (Jan 25, 2018)

Denv12 said:


> I am writing a dating advice book. One thing I didnt use so far is political correctness terms.I havent used anything with the word challenged in it.Instead I have use words like tall,short,overweight,slim,etc.I use the old words in the right way and respectable too.I just dont want to use the word challenged.It doesnt sound right. So far,I'm pleased with what I've written.



Well, we've gotten a long way away from discussing political correctness in a non-fiction book about dating. But, that's to be expected when the phrase 'political correctness' is used -- no fault of the OP, by the way. In regard to that original question, however, I'd suggest the OP needs to decide what tone he wants the book to have; does he want a serious psychology based book dealing with interpersonal relationships and emotional responses, or a more light-hearted, buddy-to-buddy conversation about getting a date for prom? The style of the book will go a long way toward making the decision about how PC the content should be.

Somewhere early on this thread took a left turn onto the road of political correctness in fiction writing. A topic which always generates heated responses, and one for which there is no one right answer. Personally I don't see how a writer can write good fiction and remain completely PC. To my way of thinking, one of the primary functions of fiction is to achieve an emotional response from our readers and doing that requires going places in our writing that may not be comfortable for everyone. People, particularly in today's culture, equate being made uncomfortable with being 'offended'. Sure it's probably possible to write a completely inoffensive story -- something that is so bland, so safe, that no one will raise an eyebrow. But why would any of us want to do that?

There is a yawning gulf between writing emotive fiction that pushes readers into uncomfortable places and being offensive simply for the sake of shocking readers, it's the difference between comedians George Carlin and Andrew Dice Clay. I have little respect for writers who choose to offend just for the sake of being offensive, but great respect for those willing to go places and explore serious topics that might make their readers cringe. Freedom of speech means we all have the right to choose which path we take.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Jan 25, 2018)

Sam said:


> And how would I know what is or isn't overtly offensive, Gamer?
> 
> You're American, right? Do you use the word 'fanny' in America, by any chance? Tell me what it means to you, if you'd be so kind.



I'm defining "overt" as "intentionally intended to mean" - it's the overtness of the author, not the word.  Of course sensibilities differ across cultures and change over time, but we can't control that.  And if you're not being intentionally offensive, but through happenstance risk cultural alienation anyway, I'd expect that's where a good editor would come in.


----------



## Sam (Jan 25, 2018)

You didn't answer my question, Gamer.


----------



## Terry D (Jan 25, 2018)

Kevin said:


> Bd- in corporate curtailment is happening. They are requiring all employees to undergo education. To give an example, if emplotyee A claims offense at something employee B says it is to be brought to a third party's ( HR's) attention and then brought back to B. B may not discuss, may not explain, deny, rebut, protest, or complain in any manner whatsoever. There is to be no discussion of circumstance, context, or bringing up of facts; no counter-claim of offense, either.  The proper response is "I hear what you are saying." That is now corporate policy. Any failure to follow corporate policy can result in termination. End of story. So there is your curtailment/compulsory modification happening now.



This isn't being driven by corporations, they are simply reacting to legal challenges in the face of our offense-of-the-week culture. If Employee A doesn't like the response he gets from HR and the case ends up in court, it's going to cost the company lots and lots of money even if they win. So, to treat everyone "equally" HR has to react as you describe.


----------



## bdcharles (Jan 25, 2018)

Smith said:


> I don't think it's an implication. When a person says "you can't say that because it's offensive" I take it literally. It's a contradiction to the very platform that allows them to say that. And by making the qualifier "offensive", suddenly everything is off the table.
> 
> There's nothing flippant about this in my estimation. If you simply wanted to say, "That offends me and I would appreciate it if you wouldn't say that when you and I are conversing," you wouldn't say the equivalent of, "It should be illegal for you to say that."
> 
> ...





Kevin said:


> Bd- in corporate curtailment is happening. They are requiring all employees to undergo education. To give an example, if emplotyee A claims offense at something employee B says it is to be brought to a third party's ( HR's) attention and then brought back to B. B may not discuss, may not explain, deny, rebut, protest, or complain in any manner whatsoever. There is to be no discussion of circumstance, context, or bringing up of facts; no counter-claim of offense, either.  The proper response is "I hear what you are saying." That is now corporate policy. Any failure to follow corporate policy can result in termination. End of story. So there is your curtailment/compulsory modification happening now.



Well, hold on. Let's not apply egg-logic to the whole breakfast here. If someone comes into my house and starts saying all sorts of things that offend me or my other guests, then unless I have brought them there with the expectation of having that sort of talk, I'm going to kick them out. No apology, no explanation, they're gone. Have they broken the law? No. Have I? No. Do I wish them ill? Of course not. But do I want them around me? Do I heck. Is that a curtailment of free speech? Freedom of speech is a public right. They can go speak freely in the rain. 

That sort of curtailment is actually good. If I was to say something offensive to my co-workers I would quite reasonably expect to lose my job or to face disciplinary action. But unless I work for the government or some public entity, this has nothing to do with any laws of the land or censorship; this is about abiding by the policy of a closed, private entity to get the privileges, and if I don't wish to do that, there are other options available to me, like starting a blog, or get another job that isn't so stringent. But even there, while I might expect some vocal opposition, there really is no curtailment being legislated for other than at a very localised, private, almost interpersonal level. It's a battle of wills, where the notion of freedom of speech is being used as rhetorical tool - much like many of the cries of offense it claims to negate. There's no mileage in taking any of it particularly literally - and Smith I have doubts that you are actually doing that because if you were, you would be struck dumb every time someone said it (and would have a solid case). So one wonders exactly how you are taking it, and to what end you suggest otherwise. It's taken as a mere conversational gambit, I venture. Which is exactly how you should take it, as an expression, a semiotic for some underlying sentiment that you are free to validate or not as you wish, and vice versa. All of this is actually okay - by the same set of tokens as people being offended left and right, it's just part and parcel of conversation in a forum such as this - but I'll happily debate exactly how useful it all is, or isn't. Personally I find the subject to be a ludicrous contradiction of "You can't  say, "You can't say that"." Ad infinitum. Pfft. Discursively calorie-negative.

Mind you, at some point, if I find myself being barred from everywhere and anywhere, public spaces, social media sites, jobs and whatever else, I would have to ask myself if what I am saying is actually doing me or anybody any favours, and if I don't, then oh well, I deserve all the pariahdom I get and have no grounds for complaint. In general I just try and look for the intent behind what is being said, and, judging by the responses I get, I have to say I'm pretty good at discerning it. Otherwise, well, we're writers. We do stuff with words. If I react to the words instead of the intent, I'd have to believe in unicorns and stuff and we all know where that leads.*


EDIT: 
Sorry, I forgot this bit:




> Just because somebody who says it here on the forums can't actually do  anything about it, doesn't mean it isn't the exact same thing.




To your first point: Saying something and doing something are different. One might - _might _- lead to another, but doesn't have to, doesn't always. I like a bit of thoughtforms and tulpa as much as the next guy but even I know what the difference is. Next time someone says to you "you can't say XYZ," say "watch me: XYZ". Now if you want to debate the impact of me saying XYZ then yes, let's do that. But outside of that, it's all just words, no action.




> "It's nothing more than "Nobody can criticize the king." masquerading  around as supposedly trying to protect people's feelings. Nobody  benefits from it except the person who wields it. Not even those who are  supposedly being "protected" from offense benefit from such an abuse,  because it infantalizes them."



Well, so what if someone says: no-one can criticise the king. What power does that have? Watch me. I'll criticise the king and while I'm doing that, I'll debate why doing it has merit. It's easy.

As for protecting people, all I have to go on are the reports of people who receive a rough introduction on a forum and them quit writing, or leave the forum. It's them I have in mind. By all acocunts such people exist, and get told to toughen up or whatever. If I am not helping them then I'll stop. But they haven't complained yet. Hell, I even got a few likes about it (which naturally I'll bang on about for years) 



* to a bloody awesome make-believe land, that's where!


----------



## Smith (Jan 25, 2018)

bdcharles said:


> Well, hold on. Let's not apply egg-logic to the whole breakfast here. If someone comes into my house and starts saying all sorts of things that offend me or my other guests, then unless I have brought them there with the expectation of having that sort of talk, I'm going to kick them out. No apology, no explanation, they're gone. Have they broken the law? No. Have I? No. Do I wish them ill? Of course not. But do I want them around me? Do I heck. Is that a curtailment of free speech? Freedom of speech is a public right. They can go speak freely in the rain.



More than likely, this theoretical someone isn't going to your house because their livelihood depends on it. I'm in agreement with you on this, because as I mentioned earlier, different rules apply to the private areas of life then the public square.



> If I was to say something offensive to my co-workers I would quite reasonably expect to lose my job or to face disciplinary action.



What's offensive to one person, isn't offensive to another. What's offensive to another person might only be offensive when it's convenient for them. Flavor of the week. Some people are only offended by _how_ things are said; others are offended by _what_ is said. And others are even offended by _why_ something is said. Etc. And being "offended" isn't even an argument. People are offended by the truth. People conflate being offended with anytime that their feelings are hurt. Do you lie in the work place, even if that lie will hurt the company? Those could be your options you know: get fired for telling the truth and offending somebody in the process, or get fired for lying. Do we rewrite the science textbooks because they might offend, even if it means replacing the information with feel-good falsehoods? Some people are offended by the fact that there are only two sexes, let alone the people who dare go as far as saying there's only two genders.

You're talking about intent here. Intending to offend somebody is one thing, and understandably would have disciplinary action involved. But as Kevin already mentioned, this is about unintentional offense. And there is no discourse allowed about this. The plaintiff doesn't even need to prove that you offended them. They don't need evidence. You can't make a case for yourself; the simple act of doing so is just admitting you're guilty. There's no discussion of whether or not you intended to be offensive, or whether or not it even MATTERS if you were offensive, because it's all the same to them.

The businesses don't do this because they agree with it. They do it because of legal pressure, charles. It's not the same thing as kicking somebody out of your house for making an extremely dickish, rude remark, which I'd be totally in favor of. 



> Smith I have doubts that you are actually doing that because if you were, you would be struck dumb every time someone said it (and would have a solid case). So one wonders exactly how you are taking it, and to what end you suggest otherwise. It's taken as a mere conversational gambit, I venture. Which is exactly how you should take it, as an expression, a semiotic for some underlying sentiment that you are free to validate or not as you wish, and vice versa. All of this is actually okay - by the same set of tokens as people being offended left and right, it's just part and parcel of conversation in a forum such as this - but I'll happily debate exactly how useful it all is, or isn't. Personally I find the subject to be a ludicrous contradiction of "You can't  say, "You can't say that"." Ad infinitum. Pfft. Discursively calorie-negative.



I _am_ struck dumb every time somebody says "I'm offended and you shouldn't be allowed to offend."

It isn't a useful conversational gambit, because it's antithetical to conversation. In fact, there's no utility at all unless your goal is to waste time or shut down conversation. It's opposed to free-speech by definition. Like I said, "I don't agree with you because I believe in free speech, but I still defend your right to say it." is the polar opposite of "It should be illegal to say what you just said, on the basis that it offended me." as far as I can tell.

In addition, it's often used to dismiss factual arguments, to slander people as bigots, and to make honest discussion off-limits. In fact, it often prevents the investigation and search for truth. Or to put it another way, _questions_ become offensive. Inquiry becomes offensive. Did somebody say Galileo?



> Mind you, at some point, if I find myself being barred from everywhere and anywhere, public spaces, social media sites, jobs and whatever else, I would have to ask myself if what I am saying is actually doing me or anybody any favours, and if I don't, then oh well, I deserve all the pariahdom I get and have no grounds for complaint. In general I just try and look for the intent behind what is being said, and, judging by the responses I get, I have to say I'm pretty good at discerning it. Otherwise, well, we're writers. We do stuff with words. If I react to the words instead of the intent, I'd have to believe in unicorns and stuff and we all know where that leads.*



Being offended isn't a valid argument. Shutting down discussion on the premise of offense isn't doing anybody any favors either.

Talking about unicorns, that's what these people want. A fantasy world where nobody is offended and nobody's feelings are hurt.

I understand charles that you may just be playing Devil's advocate, and you might just be trying to give people the benefit of the doubt... but as far as I'm concerned you might as well be saying that when somebody says "Cereal is my favorite breakfast option" in reality they're saying "I only like cereal on Thursdays, and I eat it for lunch."

We write words to express our intent. If you're telling me that all of these people who are saying "You aren't allowed to say x because it's offensive" actually don't mean it and are just pulling my leg, and that the legitimate, demonstrable real-world consequences are completely divorced from it, well, I don't know what to tell you. I'll just have to agree to disagree because I really don't know how else to prove it to you without somehow getting a few of them to join this forum, and paying large sums of money to the site to get them moderator status.

I don't jump through hoops and do mental gymnastics when somebody says something to me in a discussion. And I'm not going to start doing it every time somebody says "You're not allowed to offend me" and pretend they mean anything other than "You're not allowed to offend me."


----------



## Kevin (Jan 25, 2018)

bd-I find your whole premise of 'my house' offensive. You can't own anything. Those atoms and molecules are not yours. You can't own them any more than you can own the land they sit on. I find your whole attitude tone part of a larger repressive society. Your westerness is showing. I'm offended and you need to hear me. HR, what are you gonna do about it?! Do you support this offensive term, 'my' , and this offensive speech? Because if you do, you're not being sensitive to my feelings. That constitutes a hostile work environment, and that violates my rights.


----------



## RhythmOvPain (Jan 25, 2018)

This whole topic is just incredible.


----------



## bdcharles (Jan 25, 2018)

Smith said:


> We write words to express our intent. If you're telling me that all of these people who are saying "You aren't allowed to say x because it's offensive" actually don't mean it and are just pulling my leg, and that the legitimate, demonstrable real-world consequences are completely divorced from it, well, I don't know what to tell you. I'll just have to agree to disagree because I really don't know how else to prove it to you without somehow getting a few of them to join this forum, and paying large sums of money to the site to get them moderator status.
> 
> I don't jump through hoops and do mental gymnastics when somebody says something to me in a discussion. And I'm not going to start doing it every time somebody says "You're not allowed to offend me" and pretend they mean anything other than "You're not allowed to offend me."



My point is simply that if someone says or acts like they are offended by their reception here, is it so difficult to set aside our initial reactions about the "offended mentality" and take them at their face value (even if we do nothing) rather than dismiss them? As you heard, a new user was almost put off joining this forum because of that. Is that good? Do we want that? Whether anyone said that anyone else was "not allowed" to react in this way or that way is as immaterial as, for example, you saying you are struck dumb by this affront to free speech when plainly you're not, so that whole mental-gymnastics conversation a total side-issue. My point is I'm not happy about new users feeling like that if it results in them going away. Do with that info what you will.



Kevin said:


> bd-I find your whole premise of 'my house' offensive. You can't own anything. Those atoms and molecules are not yours. You can't own them any more than you can own the land they sit on. I find your whole attitude tone part of a larger repressive society. Your westerness is showing. I'm offended and you need to hear me. HR, what are you gonna do about it?! Do you support this offensive term, 'my' , and this offensive speech? Because if you do, you're not being sensitive to my feelings. That constitutes a hostile work environment, and that violates my rights.



I feel your pain. But rest assured, those molecules are all mine. Now don't you feel better knowing that?


----------



## Smith (Jan 25, 2018)

bdcharles said:


> My point is simply that if someone says or acts like they are offended by their reception here, is it so difficult to set aside our initial reactions about the "offended mentality" and take them at their face value (even if we do nothing) rather than dismiss them? As you heard, a new user was almost put off joining this forum because of that. Is that good? Do we want that? Whether anyone said that anyone else was "not allowed" to react in this way or that way is as immaterial as., for example, *you saying you are struck dumb by this affront to free speech when plainly you're not, so that whole mental-gymnastics conversation a total side-issue.* My point is I'm not happy about new users being treated like that if it results in them going away. Do with that info what you will.



I really have no idea what I've high-lighted in bold is supposed to mean. No offense, I just think that thread was lost a while back. Moving on!

As for the rest: I'm not questioning the legitimacy of whether or not somebody is offended. That's their personal experience. All you and I can do is go to their thread and give them constructive critique that meets the expectations, and lead by example.

Being offended is irrelevant. Unless somebody broke the rules and is harassing you when you've told them to stop, or making personal attacks on you, racism, etc., it is what it is. What that person found to be offensive, many others would not have been so easily deterred by.

I encouraged a member to stay and was lambasted for it and called a liar. Lol, I love you charles, but you came in and had some interpretations of my "vibe" that were as equally as questionable as your interpretations of the phrase "I'm offended and you're not allowed to say that." I don't really know what to tell you charles. You do you man, but I have better things to do than deal with people who are offended by the sentence, "I don't want to see you leave simply because you disagree with a minority of people here.", and are so paranoid that everybody on the site is a liar out to get them.

If you want to encourage a Twilight Zone atmosphere, be my guest. I have better things to do than be gaslighted all day by delusional projectionists with enough arrogance to feign omniscience.


----------



## Birb (Jan 25, 2018)

Wow....this escalated quickly.

In the end. The world isn't black and white, freedom of speech and political correctness I believe fall into a gray area especially. This is a debate that really has no answer. As I have seen people earlier in the thread said "When does the first person's rights conflict with the second's and vice versa?" The answer is unclear, it varies depending on who is saying what to who with what prior knowledge. Not to mention if what that person said will actually cause any 'damage'

This is an issue people can't solve in conversation, because each side has valid points to disprove the other in some respect.

I have to say, however, that the person who originally escalated this thread kind of disproved their own argument of "offending" individuals by heaping all of the scum of society onto white males (or at least came pretty close to doing so). The argument of not wanting to offend people is a little hypocritical while arguably offending a group of individuals (of course, if someone takes offense would change based on their mindset and I am personally not offended but it's a rude thing to say nonetheless)


----------



## bdcharles (Jan 25, 2018)

Smith said:


> I really have no idea what I've high-lighted in bold is supposed to mean.
> 
> As for the rest: I'm not questioning the legitimacy of whether or not somebody is offended. That's their personal experience. All you and I can do is go to their thread and give them constructive critique that meets the expectations, and lead by example.
> 
> ...



Ok. I was just sorry that the guy thought about leaving, for whatever reason.


----------



## RhythmOvPain (Jan 25, 2018)

I personally limit my responses on this forum because I know I'll be hated and likely banned.

I am "that guy," online and in real life. People don't fuck with me because I know the smell of bullshit and I know exactly what to say to piss you off.

More than anything else, when I come to a respectful organization, I do my best to conduct myself properly; that said, people are FUCKING RETARDED and need a good sized trout (or sea bass) to the side of their head from time to time.

I do not want to have to pull out the burner. Don't give me an excuse, and I won't give you one.

If everyone took the time to a) write concisely and coherently, and b) read what was said intelligently, no one would have an excuse to bitch.

That's about all I have to contribute here?


----------



## Sam (Jan 25, 2018)

Okay, we all, myself included, need to take a break. 

Thread locked for 24 hours.


----------



## Sam (Jan 27, 2018)

Are we ready to give this another go, guys and gals? 

If not, and if old habits resume, it shall be locked permanently.


----------



## Denv12 (Jan 28, 2018)

I'm okay if this is post is shut off.I got the answers I needed.
Thanks.


----------



## Winston (Jan 28, 2018)

Denv12, I treat my readers as adults.  Words mean what they mean.  Choosing less effective words never makes sense.  
My simple advice is be direct, succinct and honest.  Even your least intelligent readers will smell the stench on condescending scatology.  

It's an age-old argument:  Dumb down your writing to cast a wider net, or craft your work into something you can be proud of.   
Sorry, I can't resist:
[video=youtube_share;A_J8JAFuLdw]https://youtu.be/A_J8JAFuLdw[/video]

Always know your audience.


----------



## Denv12 (Jan 28, 2018)

Winston said:


> Denv12, I treat my readers as adults.  Words mean what they mean.  Choosing less effective words never makes sense.
> My simple advice is be direct, succinct and honest.  Even your least intelligent readers will smell the stench on condescending scatology.
> 
> It's an age-old argument:  Dumb down your writing to cast a wider net, or craft your work into something you can be proud of.
> ...


Hi Winston.
Thank you for your reply.
Should I add the political correct terms instead of using the old fashioned terms?

The book is written without trying to be condesending.I have read books that do that,even a dating book was like that.Didnt like their attitude so I am making sure I get it right as though I'm there in person helping them through each step. As I read through everything again I like what I've written and how I've written it.Its the book I wish I had when I needed advice.
I like your comment "Know your audience". Thats one of the best things I've heard.

Thanks.


----------



## Birb (Jan 28, 2018)

Write the book the way you want it to be written. I would not go for actively trying to cause people offense, but not skirting around terms some people today might label "un-pc". As stated earlier, you will have people who will be offended, that's just how today's culture is. That's all there really is to say.


----------



## Sam (Jan 29, 2018)

If you wanted to offend the least amount of people possible with your writing, you would never get anything done. 

Offence is the most subjective thing in the world. What offends one person will not offend another, but people want to make rules about this stuff? 

Write what you want and let the snowflakes be damned.


----------



## aj47 (Jan 29, 2018)

say what you mean, mean what you say.

don't go out of your way to rile people.  However, some people are easily riled and there's nothing you can do about it.  Don't factor them into your plans because, as noted, you can't really prevent their rilement.  Chances are, if they read your stuff, they only read it by accident anyway.


----------



## Carly Berg (Jan 30, 2018)

What matters here imo is how you come across to your target audience. Nobody wants to buy a book for support and advice on an issue of importance to them only to receive disrespect, however subtle or unintentional.

The attitude, focus and terms you might use with an older woman looking for a good match in a second spouse, a young guy looking for casual hook-ups and a gay individual looking to begin dating may vary. And all three can be put off by the wrong word choices, which reflect the wrong attitude for that reader to feel like you're in their corner enough to trust your advice.

So for starters, who _is_ your intended audience? I didn't see that mentioned. If it's a general dating book meant for everyone, then keep that general audience in mind. Obviously, it's somewhat subjective but that doesn't make it airy-fairy silliness, and I doubt the difference will really be hard to spot for practical purposes in your manuscript. With my nonfiction books, I find beta readers invaluable in pointing out anything I may have missed (although of course, I always have the final say).


----------



## JJBuchholz (Feb 3, 2018)

To hell with political correctness. Write what you want to write, and don't look back!

-JJB


----------

