Well, there are shades of "scariness" - I simply mean that people should understand this kind of stuff exists and take precaution before hand because it can be pretty damn serious.

Ofcourse people shouldnt be hysteric, but the flip side of the coin is then the "Oh its just aids" -type underrating. ->Like someone has brand new car with the newest safety mecanisms + all the electronic crap and then they drive too fast and carelessly "Because the seller told me its safe car" >.<

Sure there are medicines for aids (for example) and people can live pretty normal life ...but wouldnt it still be best not to have it in the first place?

Well, ofcourse people do not respect health until they lose it, but I am blabbering. sorry.

Of course, I just don't like fear, I think it undermines both understanding and treatment which are both preferable.

Of course people should take precautions (part of understanding), fear will frequently lead to irrational responses, though, which is the source of all kinds of problems (see small town teen pregnancy rates for an example).

Ill not start splitting hairs over the "fear" -word, so ill just say yes and no :)

But I do think, that these not many people really even understand what fears are really all about. One whose afraid of nothing is just as fool as someone who is afraid of everything.

ill stop the philosophy at this point...unless theres philosophy thread somewhere hidden :D

Any thread Vestin posts in will probably contain at least a smidge:)

Exactly. Retard just used to mean slow. The 1001 names little people used to be called weren't originally offensive until they decided that actually they were. Although I kind of understand why 'ankle biter' might not have been in the best possible taste.

Generally speaking it's all just symptomatic of political correctness - which I see as being a Racist's* Guide To How to Not Appear Racist, Only You Do Anyway Because Your Attempt To Not Appear Racist Makes It Look Like You Are.

*or insert the 'ist' of your choice here.

Well at least now you know why the previous owner was selling it so cheap.

And had that itch.

Sort of, "short bus" didn't seem that offensive to me until my child started riding one. When I was in my early 20s calling my friends "fag" didn't seem that offensive.

Sometimes you just get enough maturity and life experience to re-examine your assumptions. Sometimes you realize you were wrong and decide to change.

The way I see it, there's not being offensive by means of your own initiative, like what you describe above, and then there's desperately trying to not appear offensive by adhering to the aforementioned Racist's Guide.

With PC you're still branding people by skin colour. Still sorting them out via a Dulux colour chart. Employing people according to their colour and giving yourself a pat on the back when you have enough of each category of person as per the way in which you pigeon-holed them.

In other words, it's the same shit but to a different end. The mentality is still very much there.

Not using terms like 'fag' because it doesn't sit right with you is completely different to insisting that someone be called African American when they've never once set foot in the US and other related retarded shit like that.

It's the difference between thinking and acting with a conscience and a blundering, clumsy attempt at faking it which only really makes matters worse.

What exactly is a "Short bus" anyway? is that like a special American thing over there or what?

Students diagnosed with disabilities or "special needs" are separated from the general population and designated transportation on a smaller school bus.

Special education schools don't generally have a large number of students, so they often use short school buses instead of the standard long ones. So the association is "zomgz you must be retarded!" even though short buses are often used for other purposes.

Heck, with the prevalence of inclusion (and reverse inclusion) nowadays, even being IN a special ed class doesn't necessarily mean there's anything "wrong" with you.

In related news, they don't use "retarded" anymore, they use "delayed." Which means virtually the exact same thing, of course, but is marginally more accurate and doesn't have the same connotations yet.

Heh, I just saw this thread and the first thing I thought of was "Give it any fancy acronym you want, but I'm old enough that it will always be the clap to me".

"Delayed" kind of implies an expectation that one day this person will just turn around and be able to keep pace with everyone else. Both labels designate and isolate the people labeled and seek to mask the implicit cruelty of meritocratic thinking to begin with.

I will grant that sometimes PC (which itself I don't like as a term, as it seems to mostly serve as a catch all for "individual programs I don't like") can have some undesired results, if all it really is is a "bigots guide to try not to act like a bigot" and actual bigots are making an effort to use it, isn't that preferable to people just being unintentionally bigoted?

Why do we need to make efforts? Well, because certain things happened in the US, so we make certain efforts. Certain things happened in Germany, likewise they make certain efforts related to that.

All in all, affirmative action has shown positive results. Yes, some proponents are not pleasant people and even lie to promote their ideals, but truthfully that can be said for both sides so I'll simply judge the preferable "way" for society to go based on the merits I perceive. Not using terms that are offensive to others, even unthinkingly, is a good thing. Yes, you might not have meant it pejoratively, but if you realize that it can conjure up some awful demons in others the right thing to do is avoid it if possible. I'll admit I can be a hypocrite here as well, there's a few things I don't hold with and I don't know if it's my ignorance or the proponents really being unreasonable (e.g. rape culture seems bigoted and trigger warning sounds like a crutch in place of actual mental health treatment).

There's a very, very long discussion here, overall and even with the drawbacks, I have to prefer the culture that gives a crap enough to try. If we have a better way to deal with it, yes, let's do that. I don't see any alternatives offered that don't simply amount to, "don't do anything at all." We all know what the results were when we didn't do anything at all, we're trying to avoid that now, what sane reason do we have for thinking not doing anything at all will have different results in the future?

There have been a lot of good arguments for/against the change.

I vaguely remember the term venereal disease and for some reason never realized that STD was phasing it out.

The thing that frustrates me the most, is the problems that happen because of transitions like this. People that already understand the medical terminology do not really have problems getting it, but people that vaguely understood it to begin with could have difficulty making the connection that STI = STD.

Even though infection is the correct term, people that have known it for years as "disease" might not understand something and thereby put themselves at risk of catching and spreading one.

What's happened is that we've established that we need a more inclusive society and that there's absolutely no reason for that not to happen (and compared to how it used to be we're most of the way there on that... here at least).

But the mindset behind that transition is no different than the mindset behind the more segregated days of old. It's just applied to a different task. It's like a bunch of chimps trained to sit around in comfy clothes and drink tea. They don't understand what they're doing. They've just been taught how to do it.

We're not going to make any real progress until the mindset changes. Yes, you could argue that if society is structured in a more positive way then people's outlook will be altered accordingly. But I don't think that it is more positive or more encouraging of a more positive outlook.

If you see a black co-worker promoted over you and you know, you KNOW it's because they're black then does that improve your attitude towards black people? Or does it mean that there now will be a reason for animosity where previously there was absolutely none? Yeah, I suppose hating people for a reason is better than hating them for no reason at all, but personally I'd rather just not hate at all, you know?

The pendulum swings one way. Then it swings the other. What does it do next? It doesn't take a genius to figure that one out. If you don't want that to happen then you just stop it dead in the middle. No bias either way. No categorizing of people in meaningless ways. Just take people as you find them on an individual level.

Oh and I'm not clear on the 'rape culture' bit, by the way.