Seattle removes offensive words 'citizen,' 'brown bag' from vocabulary

[dead0man]

link

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Apparently "brown bag" was used by black people 50 years ago to refer to a lighter shade of brother that was more acceptable at certain black people parties and organizations and such.  Primarily in the south.  If this is all the "Office for Civil Rights" is doing, perhaps it's time they close their doors.

[Link]

If this is all the "Office for Civil Rights" is doing...

It's not.

[The Free North]

Awful, disgusting, repulsive.


Why would anyone, EVER, attempt to ban speech? Because a small group of people find it offensive? Thats why we have a first amendment anyways.


Every council member who voted for this should consider resignation.

[They not like us]

I've never ever heard the term "brown bag" used in a racially-connected way.

Also, as far as I'm concerned, anyone who lives anywhere is a citizen of that city/state/country, regardless of what the Government says.

[Goldwater]

Gotta love political correctness!

[The Free North]

It's incredible how we are now destroying free speech because we are so afraid of hurting someones feelings.

[Link]

It's incredible how we are now destroying free speech because we are so afraid of hurting someones feelings.

Some day when you go to school or get a job you will realize that for most of us the US Constitution is irrelevant when it comes to our day to day behavior.  Regardless of what is written on a piece of paper in Washington DC there are tons of perfectly legal reasons I could get fired.  By the time you are pulling out the Constitution to defend what you are doing you've crossed dozens of lines already.

[Lief 🗽]

It's incredible how we are now destroying free speech because we are so afraid of hurting someones feelings.

lol, the government encouraging its employees to use more respectful words = destroying free speech

This is why no one takes the libertarian conception of "liberty" seriously.

[Oak Hills]

It's incredible how we are now destroying free speech because we are so afraid of hurting someones feelings.

They are not restricting what anyone can say. They are simply urging their employees not the to use certain terms. Urging them not to use them, not banning them from using them.

[Joe Republic]

Awful, disgusting, repulsive.


Why would anyone, EVER, attempt to ban speech? Because a small group of people find it offensive? Thats why we have a first amendment anyways.


Every council member who voted for this should consider resignation.

Overreaction, much?

[Downnice]

Okay this is coming from a state where having people on radio openly high on weed is acceptably (which I support)

[King]

It's only "political correctness strikes again," because there was a dumb reason involving skin color given.  I'm sure this isn't the world's first interoffice memo sent around the marketing department suggesting "word A" sounds better than "word B" and to use it.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

It's only "political correctness strikes again," because there was a dumb reason involving skin color given.  I'm sure this isn't the world's first interoffice memo sent around the marketing department suggesting "word A" sounds better than "word B" and to use it.

Yep. Plus it's just a suggestion. If anyone actually loses their job over this, then it's a relevant thing to consider an issue, until then it's just a silly memo that just about everyone who hears about will laugh about, including and especially the people it's aimed at.

[Vosem]

Also, as far as I'm concerned, anyone who lives anywhere is a citizen of that city/state/country, regardless of what the Government says.

That...seems like an overbroad definition. Was John McCain a citizen of North Vietnam for 6 years?

[They not like us]

Also, as far as I'm concerned, anyone who lives anywhere is a citizen of that city/state/country, regardless of what the Government says.

That...seems like an overbroad definition. Was John McCain a citizen of North Vietnam for 6 years?

1. I'm talking about permanent, living residency, not POW residency.

2. We're all citizens of planet Earth.

[Vosem]

Also, as far as I'm concerned, anyone who lives anywhere is a citizen of that city/state/country, regardless of what the Government says.

That...seems like an overbroad definition. Was John McCain a citizen of North Vietnam for 6 years?

1. I'm talking about permanent, living residency, not POW residency.

Surely being in one building for six years constitutes living there? And what about (less hostile example) diplomats or peace workers? Are they citizens of the country where they work? What if someone renounces their citizenship of a political entity but continues to live within its geographical boundaries?

2. We're all citizens of planet Earth.

Amen to that. Even though Planet Earth isn't a country, so you can't actually be a citizen of it

[Kitteh]

Okay this is coming from a state where having people on radio openly high on weed is acceptably (which I support)

I fully support having immigrants getting stoned on the radio and bringing sack lunches for when they get the munchies. That's my America.

[The Free North]

It's incredible how we are now destroying free speech because we are so afraid of hurting someones feelings.

Some day when you go to school or get a job you will realize that for most of us the US Constitution is irrelevant when it comes to our day to day behavior.  Regardless of what is written on a piece of paper in Washington DC there are tons of perfectly legal reasons I could get fired.  By the time you are pulling out the Constitution to defend what you are doing you've crossed dozens of lines already.

First off, I both work and study, so take your condescending tone somewhere else. Secondly, there is no logic in justifying wrong with other wrong, sorry.

[The Free North]

It's incredible how we are now destroying free speech because we are so afraid of hurting someones feelings.

lol, the government encouraging its employees to use more respectful words = destroying free speech

This is why no one takes the libertarian conception of "liberty" seriously.

Maybe in the world yo live in. But to the rest of the country, the idea of 'removing words' is an assault on our free speech.

[barfbag]

It's not up to the government to censor speech because it goes against the first amendment. What about barf bag instead of brown bag?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

It's not up to the government to censor speech because it goes against the first amendment.

You clearly didn't read the article.

1-The government is not censoring speech, not even of its own employees.
2-The First Amendment reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Now explain how a government agency making a suggestion in phrases to use that just about everyone will no doubt ignore violates that.

Really when it comes to political correctness I've noticed it's conservatives who flip out more, and often insist on using the "politically incorrect" term just to make a point when a lot of such terms are actually just stupid. For example I refuse to ever refer to any people as "Indians" unless they actually come from India. This is not out of political correctness, but because calling Native Americans or anyone who isn't from India or of Indian ancestry an "Indian" is objectively incorrect. This has still resulted in making some conservatives go apopletic and if anyone remembers dazzleman he was actually quite offended by the term "Native American" and said it implied that no other people have any right to live in America (which is a comical conclusion to make.) Now who is adhering to a form of political correctness more there?

For another example see conservatives who'll flip out over any use of "African-American" even though there is virtually no one around today who actually insists on using the term always and not using "black", and that the term is rarely used except for when it's a more descriptive term. Anyone who objects to phrases like "African-American cuisine" or "African-American culture" or the official term used by linguists "African American Vernacular English" is basically implying that black people all around the entire world are exactly the same in regards to these things, which is mind numbingly moronic. Plus where I live the term is useful in distinguishing the long term black population of Minneapolis and the influx of recent African immigrants, who for the most part don't live in the same areas and don't have much in common at all with the African-American community and for whom lumping together would be just as stupid as assuming that South Florida Cubans are basically the same group of people as Mexicans in the Southwest.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh no!  We are now officially headed down the road to serfdom!!

In all seriousness, the reason for it is dumb, as King said, but that doesn't warrant the reaction it's getting.  But thanks for the freak-out show.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

if the Office of Civil Rights is so bored they have to come up with silly things to be offended at, maybe that's a good sign (?)

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I guess the local PBS affiliate won't be allowed to air any reruns of old Batman episodes then...

[They not like us]

Also, as far as I'm concerned, anyone who lives anywhere is a citizen of that city/state/country, regardless of what the Government says.

That...seems like an overbroad definition. Was John McCain a citizen of North Vietnam for 6 years?

1. I'm talking about permanent, living residency, not POW residency.

Surely being in one building for six years constitutes living there? And what about (less hostile example) diplomats or peace workers? Are they citizens of the country where they work? What if someone renounces their citizenship of a political entity but continues to live within its geographical boundaries?

Again, I'm a Utopianist, but in my perfect world, there would be no violence or war. Everyone could live wherever they want. There would be no established nations or states.

The McCain example is a bad one. I'm talking about voluntary permanent, living residency.