Hey, Maph... you missed one...
While I'm loathe to defend Alec Baldwin, even if he said what he was accused of saying, it wasn't "homophobic".
"Homophobic" would have been something like, "Oh, my God! Run! There's a c*ks**king f*g approaching! Run for your lives! Godzirra! Godzirra!"
Meanwhile, while we're expected to allow the warping of a perfectly good word to promote the stereotype of homosexuals as being effeminate (to wit: "gay"), "redneck" is continued to be used as a welcome slur by one and all w/o the least bit of outrage anywhere outside of my apartment. "Dumbf**king redneck" is still perfectly acceptable. (and God forbid you should name your football team "redskins"; it might offend some aborigines whose permanent tan is the color of red Oklahoma clay.)
And while I'd probably be taken to court for referring to Obama as "The Democrats boy", any white male you encounter is fair game, regardless of age, to be called "white boy".
And don't tell any homosexual jokes (even if they're about Barney Frank, a walking, talking, homosexual joke), but feel free to tell dumb blonde jokes.
But, blondes can always die their hair, and join in twisting perfectly useful words like "chairman" into tongue twisters such as "chairperson". Or dropping "actress" and "hostess" altogether. And God forbid you should refer to "flight attendants" as "stewards" and "stewardesses".
My point (you knew I'd get around to one, have faith) is that it doesn't matter that the slur Baldwin used was directed at the (probably inaccurately) presumed sexual appetite of his victim. Had he called the guy a "baby-raping bastard" it would have been equally offensive (and probably equally inaccurate). But, no, they don't make the issue that Baldwin has a propensity for curse-laced verbal abuse, which it should be; they make the issue that this particular curse-laced verbal abuse violated the requirement that we all must embrace and accept homosexuality.
"Homophobic" would have been something like, "Oh, my God! Run! There's a c*ks**king f*g approaching! Run for your lives! Godzirra! Godzirra!"
Meanwhile, while we're expected to allow the warping of a perfectly good word to promote the stereotype of homosexuals as being effeminate (to wit: "gay"), "redneck" is continued to be used as a welcome slur by one and all w/o the least bit of outrage anywhere outside of my apartment. "Dumbf**king redneck" is still perfectly acceptable. (and God forbid you should name your football team "redskins"; it might offend some aborigines whose permanent tan is the color of red Oklahoma clay.)
And while I'd probably be taken to court for referring to Obama as "The Democrats boy", any white male you encounter is fair game, regardless of age, to be called "white boy".
And don't tell any homosexual jokes (even if they're about Barney Frank, a walking, talking, homosexual joke), but feel free to tell dumb blonde jokes.
But, blondes can always die their hair, and join in twisting perfectly useful words like "chairman" into tongue twisters such as "chairperson". Or dropping "actress" and "hostess" altogether. And God forbid you should refer to "flight attendants" as "stewards" and "stewardesses".
My point (you knew I'd get around to one, have faith) is that it doesn't matter that the slur Baldwin used was directed at the (probably inaccurately) presumed sexual appetite of his victim. Had he called the guy a "baby-raping bastard" it would have been equally offensive (and probably equally inaccurate). But, no, they don't make the issue that Baldwin has a propensity for curse-laced verbal abuse, which it should be; they make the issue that this particular curse-laced verbal abuse violated the requirement that we all must embrace and accept homosexuality.
Whenever I'm at Wal-Mart, the celebrity gossip magazines they have up front always have some kind of headline along the lines of "Guess who's pregnant now?" And I'm like, "I don't care."
Honestly, if people spent as much time developing their own talents as they do worshiping celebrities, they'd probably be celebrities themselves.
This sort of discussion belongs on the TMZ site where all those concerned with "celebrity" moronic statements belong.
I would further question the webmaster of Galt's Gulch to explain why there are apparently no standards of any kind for posting on this site?
My purpose is not to restrict free speech, but to encourage appropriate topics for this site.
Fred Speckmann
Fred
Shrinking Pie Economics
Rich People Aren't Makers, They Are Takers
Legislation Realizes Morality
Chime right in. Make your own content too. People are interested in having discussions around here. Even on this particular post, I read it over and I think Hiraghm got it exactly right in his explanation. People post examples of PC run amok here all the time. Doesn't seem out of context to me.
Meander, I knew for decades before I discovered the source while studying the coins of the ancient Greeks. See for example this coin of Alexander the Great struck by Magnesia ad Maeander with a "meander" in the exergue:
http://www.coinarchives.com/2ddbe8c54581...
Lionel initially did not appreciate Gulch meandering. He has since participated sparingly
I'm making the ant sound right now.... it can't be heard with human ears so you can't describe it or imitate it because you can't hear it. I can't even hear it...but I'm making it.
the ocean better drown that out or I will be awake
Fred
Political correctness as a tool of the looters and moochers *is* a relevant topic here, IMO.
No, I;m not proposing that, what I'm hoping to see are discussions that deal with the general philosophy of Ayn Rand. As an example, I would point to my posted, titled: Are American Bankers the Jews of 1938 Germany? I don't mean to put my post as being in some way superior, only to point out the fact that Ayn Rand's philosphy is important and that post touches on many of her points. For example, the present administrations attacks on Wall Street and business in general. Pitting one group against another, by scapegoating earned wealth as being the evil on this earth instead of the source of jobs. The constant barrage of false claims directed towards successful people as if they are only successful because they cheated the poor. Perhaps the time has come for the achievers to go on strike and let the moochers see where their next meal is coming from.
My ultimate point to criticizing some of the posts is that we have serious matters to deal with, let the moochers deal with the celebrity gossip.
Fred
I didn't bring this up as celebrity gossip. CHECK YOUR PREMISES.
This is the issue of political correctness, one of the most powerful and pervasive tools used by the left to shape us into a collectivist paradise.
This isn't celebrity gossip about who's banging who in Hollyweird; it's about the media, *intentionally* focusing on the verbal abuse employing derogatory references to homosexuality, rather than on the verbal abuse itself.
So, this is about political correctness, not about celebrities or gossip.
personally, I'd like to see more emphasis on rational self interest which would not include some sort of special privilege for one group and the under the thumb for another group. If the gay political machine would get a clue about this-they'd be so much more productive as individuals. but NO they must be a group and they must be marginalized. it's a fail for them. sadly, imo
on this post, you're taking ME on Maph? lol
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004...
Also, gay and lesbian people are perfectly capable of reproducing. Not with each other, obviously (at least not yet), but there are such things as sperm donors and surrogate mothers.
We've ceded homosexuals the name "gay", which used to mean happy. That's mixed up enough since most of the homosexual people I've known are angry, unhappy and socially unbalanced. Be that as it is, you can find another "term" to use.
Gay and lesbian people are perfectly capable of getting married. Not to each other, obviously, but there are such things as members of the opposite sex.
The bond between man and wife isn't simply a rational contract, but an instinctual emotion, which is why most marriages include ceremony with the contract; to cement the emotional connection.
The traditional wedding vows... "I now pronounce you man and wife, you may kiss the bride".
More romantic to me than "... I now pronounce you contractually obligated. You may engage in pseudo-sexual activities with the person, animal or object of your choice at this time."
But, I'm old-fashioned :D
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/01/14/why-...
Basically it's just a shorthand way of referring to the entire community at once. Sometimes people will change up the order of the letters and use GLBT instead, and the other day I even heard one advocate say she liked to use BLTG because she found it amusing to make people think she was talking about a sandwich. But LGBT and GLBT are the two most dominate arrangements.
In addition, there also times when people will tack the letter Q on the end for Queer in order to include anyone not covered under the first four categories. I've also noticed that it's becoming more common to add the letter I for Intersex and A for Asexual (total absence of sexual attraction to anyone), and P for Pansexual (similar to bisexual, except that it acknowledges the existence of more than two genders). Of course the more letters that get added on to the acronym, the more unwieldy it becomes (LGBTQIAP is more difficult to say than LGBT), and there is a debate among community members as to whether to use a different label other than what has become known as the "alphabet soup." The LGBT club at the university I attend decided to simply call themselves the Spectrum Club, and clubs at other universities experiment with varying names and labels as well, and some people advocate using shorter but more inclusive alternatives such as GSM (Gender and Sexual Minorities) or GSD (Gender and Sexual Diversity).
You can find more information at the following links:
http://ftm-transscribed.tumblr.com/post/...
http://www.queerty.com/therapists-argue-...
http://www.cracked.com/funny-1312-the-mo...
And you're asking for a resume? What for?
What kind of information are you wanting, exactly?
I haven't really much looked into non-university organizations, so I can't say what their policies would be like. My guess is there's a significant amount of diversity (!) among different clubs.