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

[lookout123]

audible laugh. thanks HM.

[Pico and ME]

Good post Chris.

[classicman]

Very well put.

[DanaC]

That was compelling.

This

But these are not innocent times, and the codes are still messages printed and sent out.

eloquently states the issue at hand.

Originally Posted by DanaC

That was compelling.

This eloquently states the issue at hand.

Agreed.

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

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Redux

but rather understanding how words and actions may be interpreted by others.

I'm relatively sure we all realize that.

Originally Posted by classicman

I'm relatively sure we all realize that.

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

[xoxoxoBruce]

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.

Politicaly Correct, is not about politics, it's about not saying/doing anything, that anyone, anywhere, might perceive as offensive. Even if it's the truth.

[classicman]

The question was never whether something could be interpreted in a way other than it was intended.

[Griff]

wow

[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There seems far more venom directed at the 'PC brigade' than at the people who are causing offence by using outdated and offensive language to describe groups of people.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.

[classicman]

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.

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.

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.
Not true. Not even close.

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.

Let me play Devil's advocate here - just for the topic of discussion. (I'm afraid already this is gonna go really badly)

1) Does the company not have the right to express their religion in a very VERY unobtrusive way? These markings were on their scopes long before any of this started. The situation has changed since then. Apparently the need to change as well. If so,

I and many many others are offended by those people who wish to cover their entire faces as if they were about to commit a crime. I find it politically incorrect for them to wear this type of extremely concealing clothing especially in these troubling and difficult times.

[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.

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.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Political Correctness never lacked the Thought Police* features even from its inception. It has grown into a tyranny of non-think. It must be overthrown.


*Blatant 1984 reference.