WWJK: Who would Jesus Kill - Military supplier adds bible references to rifle sights

Originally Posted by DanaC

I am often bemused by how much effort people put into arguing their right to offend. and equally bemused by the level of venom aimed at those who would choose to temper language in an effort not to cause undue offence.

Bemused, befuddled and bewildered beyond belief.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by classicman

Not their right to offend, not at all. Its their right to not have so much of what is said or done be misconstrued or misinterpreted as an offense when it was not intended as such. The issue, I think, for some is that we have become overly concerned about unintentionally offending anyone, that we almost can't say anything to anyone. It really is getting ridiculous.

You are exaggerating Classicman. The "PC is taking over our language" bandwagon is easy to get on but its not reality.

Obviously this is generalized, but really see two types of political correctness. One tries to eliminate things that attacks entire groups of people and the other tries to eliminate things that do not attack entire groups of people. Examples of the first are racist, sexist, and homophobic words or something like putting a confederate flag outside an African American cultural center. Examples of the second are words such as black (not an insulting word to vast majority) or actions such as Christmas lights or putting up the confederate flag in a "state's pride" manner.

Personally, I believe the first type is legitimate political correctness and the second is not legitimate and used by insecure overly offended people who are looking for attention (there is an obvious gray area but I am ignoring that for this). And fuck those people. Unless you speak publically or that insecure person holds some power over you, you are usually fine.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Redux

Agreed.

He recognized that perceptions are not always an issue of PC but rather understanding how words and actions may be interpreted by others.

Originally Posted by classicman

I'm relatively sure we all realize that.

Originally Posted by Redux

I must have been confused by the most recent references to the PC Brigade.

I guess they realize it, but they don't care. That doesn't help.

Originally Posted by lookout123

... who gives a damn.

To make my position perfectly clear: I don't care about the markings.

Originally Posted by classicman

I think a big deal is being made of it. I'm more interested in other issues - this doesn't even make it onto the list of real concerns I have.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

This whole story is stupid and has very little traction among the troops. They could give a shit. Is it sighted properly and will I hit my target is a much more important question. There is no story here.

Originally Posted by lookout123

... fuck 'em.

I don't really give a shit.

Originally Posted by lookout123

Go ahead and freak out if you want.

Who cares if there is a series of letters and numbers etched into the metal?

[classicman]

Hey there spexxie - you really think the post of mine you quoted is the same as the others?

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Why is that necessary? If you don't know who wants to cut your head off, DanaC, I'd say you're missing a fundamental right there. And you can imagine why they'd want to cut your personal head off, can't you?

And you know they wouldn't be right or righteous, yet would be by some jerkass philosophy entirely Politically Correct.

So speaketh the urbane one; handily leaping into the conceptual trap to which I was referring in the first place.

My point, UG, is that people have raised the potential issue of 'moslems' being given the wrong impression about the nature of this war: to whit, that it is a Christian 'crusade' against Islam. Other people have responded by suggesting that those who might take offence (i.e. moslems) are the enemy and should be more concerned with why they are being sighted in the gun sights in the first place; or, as you so neatly suggest, are the ones who might be wanting to cut my head off. Thereby confirming that, as far as you are concerned, any moslem is apparently slotted into the category of enemy in this conflict.

I don't really think any of the people who've raised objections to the bible verses were doing so because they think it might offend a Taleban or AQ fighter. The problem is that it might offend, or more importantly exacerbate perceptions of the war as a Christian crusade amongst other moslems - y'know...the ones we aren't fighting. Maybe even the ones who are our allies; our comrades; and the people we are hoping to 'liberate'.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by DanaC

The problem is that it might offend, or more importantly exacerbate perceptions of the war as a Christian crusade amongst other moslems - y'know...the ones we aren't fighting. Maybe even the ones who are our allies; our comrades; and the people we are hoping to 'liberate'.

I gotcha. I understand this. Again how far do we go? When they feel that celebrating Christmas is offensive or going to church or or or whatever. How far do we go so that we don't UNINTENTIONALLY offend someone.

Oh and are they doing the same for us? Not trying to start a a tit for tat here. Just asking.

Also, You didn't respond to the scenario I presented you.

[DanaC]

Sorry m'dear: I need to think about that post before I respond :P

As to the offence at celebrating Christmas etc: there are a few cases where that is genuine, but more often than not it is invented by bored journalists and racist dickheads.

Case in point: I get told at least 3 or 4 times every year that 'we can't even put Christmas decorations up in Bradford city centre anymore because it might offend the moslems/pakis'. This story has been doing the rounds for at least 5 years and is complete bulllshit. I've had people trot it out to me when I've been doorknocking/canvassing; I've seen it trotted out in readers' letters to local newspapers 9and equally ludicrous equivalents in national newspapers).

I know for a fact, because I shop in Bradford every fucking Christmas, that there are Christmas decorations there every year. Not just 'holiday' decorations; but proper, Christmas decorations, up to and including a fuck off big manger scene in front of the city hall and christmas trees in the main square and all the smaller centres.

I hear the same thing said of Halifax centre again, it's bollocks) and Leeds 9again bollocks).

The fact that it is patently untrue has unfortunately not stopped it becoming perceived wisdom. It is more or less accepted by a large sector of the population (according to various surveys conducted by the Searchlight organisation) that these stories are true.

Similarly: a huge furore erupted in the press (local and national) about councils not allowing St George flags to be hung in their town halls on St George's day 'for fear of offending moslem/pakis'. It is possible an isolated number of councils did make that rather silly decision. But, it is trotted out regardless of the truth. I have had people tell me that our council won;t allow St george flags to be hung on St George's day. Again, i know this is false. I work in the town hall: there was a bloody great big St George flag hung on the wall of the great hall. The same accusation was made of police for stopping people having st george flags on their cars. People were up in arms because it was 'so as not to offend moslems/pakis'. In actual fact it was a road safety issue, because there had been a number of incidents on motorways, where the little plastic flags on the back of the car had broken off and flown back into the window of the car behind.

As a local politician I find myself being told this stuff again and again. The percentage of these stories that have any basis in truth is miniscule. The weight of them all taken together serves to create a general sense of 'PC gone mad' and 'native English people as second class citizens in their own land'.

There are, from time to time, occasions where an attempt not to create offence goes awry. Someone makes a bad call. But, there are also occasions when someone's lack of sensitivity to a potential for offence also goes awry and someone likewise makes a bad call. These days, people are less likely to be offended by examnples of institutional and overt racism; because the social changes that we refer to as 'PC' have changed the landscape.

The world is not perfect. But, truly, I'd rather someone end up accidentally getting in hot water now and again because someone hasbeen over zealous ion their attempts to avoid offence, than we return to a time when deeply offensive and bigotted language and policy was the norm in public service and the workplace.

[Flint]

The liberal media won't let me say grace at my dinner table, in my own house!!!1

[DanaC]

They stopped me saying The Lord's Prayer before bed!

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by DanaC

They stopped me saying The Lord's Prayer before bed!

Originally Posted by Flint

The liberal media won't let me say grace at my dinner table, in my own house!!!1

See! See! There's proof! The Moslems/Pakis are ruining everything... on two continents. Well a continent and a piddly island.

[DanaC]

Hey! that piddly island was once Great ya know!

[Griff]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Politically Correct may mean that now; but it started out referring to the attempt not to offend particular groups of people with language that had become loaded. So, it became politically incorrect to talk about 'the little woman' or 'the fairer sex' and became equally politically incorrect to talk about 'darkies' or 'our dusky cousins'.

I am often bemused by how much effort people put into arguing their right to offend. and equally bemused by the level of venom aimed at those who would choose to temper language in an effort not to cause undue offence.

There seems far more venom directed at the 'PC brigade' than at the people who are causing offence by using outdated and offensive language to describe groups of people. Likewise there is far more venom in here for those who would seek not to offend moslems generally through clumsy inclusion of bible verses on gun sights, than there is for a company who was clumsy enough to include those verses in the first place.

Anybody who is offended, or claims an awareness of the potential for offence gets lumped in to a big group and discounted instantly. More disturbingly, given the context of this discussion, is that any moslem who might be offended by this is assumed to be 'the enemy' ... any moslem in Afghanistan should apparently be more concerned by why they are being sighted with this equipment than what is written on it...in other words, all Afghan Moslems are the enemy.

Amen.

Originally Posted by DanaC

My point, UG, is that people have raised the potential issue of 'moslems' being given the wrong impression about the nature of this war: to whit, that it is a Christian 'crusade' against Islam.

Based on the replies, I believe we need to entertain the idea that for a group of war supporters this is, by nature, a Crusade.

[DanaC]

Here's a clip from Charlie Brooker's Newswipe. It's a series that analyses news production and patterns of news coverage. It's a bit of a side step, but I think relevant to this discussion. It's a ten minute clip, the most relevant section starts a couple of minutes in, but worth watching the whole thing for clarity. The contribution from the Canadian journalist on the way 'narratives' form in the media is particularly intteresting in the context of our current 'crusade'. Another relevant section is about 9 minutes in: showing how footage of Yemen (in the wake of the recent bomb attempt) relies on videos uploaded by Al Q. and therefore offers an entirely skewed view of the country as being made up of jihadists.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Hey! that piddly island was once Great ya know!

And then they became politically correct, and look what happened. Heart breaking to see such great people reduced to being.... frenchly.

[DanaC]

Frenchly? Who, dear? Us dear? No Dear! How Dare you? How very dare you!