Seattle Bans Potentially Offensive Words Like 'Citizen' and 'Brown Bag'

[IlarMeilyr]

My efforts to locate the "memo" in question have come up short.

I'd love to see the actual memo, not just some KOMO rendition of some of what it says.

But, I can't locate a copy or find the actual text.

Anybody out there able to find it?

 

[Pogo]

Good, glad you agree, now fuck off.

"Don't have the right to not be offended" is pure unmitigated insanity. Seek professional help.

Btw if we "don't have the right not to be offended", then logically you must not have the right to tell Noomi to fuck off -- even though she's already in agreement about PC-itis. Or me for the same thing.

Sucks to be Roo.

Nope. Sucks to be you. Roo is right.

You have no "right" not to be offended.

You have a right to express your disagreement when you are offended, but if you had some actual "right" to NOT be offended, you'd have to have some way to vindicate that right.

You don't.

You can't sue me if my expressed beliefs happen to offend you. So, to put it as a smart old law school professor once noted: There is no "right" without a remedy and there is no "remedy" without a right.

I have a right to speak freely; and if whatever I share by way of some opinion happens to offend you, tough toenails.

Speak of the devil. I was just going to note, RE Doctor's post:

If no one has the right to "suggest" what words you use, what the fuck gives you the right to bitch and whine about political correctness?

-- that Roo's doo doo is remarkably akin to your own whining over here about boycotts "putting a thumb on the scale of the free market" -- which I noted amounts to belief in the concept of the free market, "as long as I like how others are using it".

Same thing here with the free market of ideas. Those ridiculously claiming nobody has a right to be offended, uttered in the act of being offended, are in fact practicing the same thought control they claim to disdain. Again, see post 101.

In short, the last sentence of your post, which is spot-on correct, directly contradicts this absurd idea of "having no right not to be offended". So you ended up right, and you don't even know how you got there.

Thanks for stopping by

 

[IlarMeilyr]

"Don't have the right to not be offended" is pure unmitigated insanity. Seek professional help.

Btw if we "don't have the right not to be offended", then logically you must not have the right to tell Noomi to fuck off -- even though she's already in agreement about PC-itis. Or me for the same thing.

Sucks to be Roo.

Nope. Sucks to be you. Roo is right.

You have no "right" not to be offended.

You have a right to express your disagreement when you are offended, but if you had some actual "right" to NOT be offended, you'd have to have some way to vindicate that right.

You don't.

You can't sue me if my expressed beliefs happen to offend you. So, to put it as a smart old law school professor once noted: There is no "right" without a remedy and there is no "remedy" without a right.

I have a right to speak freely; and if whatever I share by way of some opinion happens to offend you, tough toenails.

Speak of the devil. I was just going to note, RE Doctor's post:

If no one has the right to "suggest" what words you use, what the fuck gives you the right to bitch and whine about political correctness?

-- that Roo's doo doo is remarkably akin to your own whining over here about boycotts "putting a thumb on the scale of the free market" -- which I noted amounts to belief in the concept of the free market, "as long as I like how others are using it".

Same thing here with the free market of ideas. Those ridiculously claiming nobody has a right to be offended, uttered in the act of being offended, are in fact practicing the same thought control they claim to disdain. Again, see post 101.

Thanks for stopping by

Your usual incoherence is once again on display.

As to my "thumb on the scales" comment, I of course stand by that since it is, simply and obviously, true. The market works as the market works. Toss in some "boycott," and it's no longer the market forces at play. You can deny it, but you aren't honest when you do so.

As for Roo's comment, again: he's right. And that means that YOU are (again) just wrong.

You have NO right not to be offended. In fact, it is validly a matter of indifference to all that you might BE offended. Who cares? Too fucking bad. Get over it, ya whiny bitch.

 

[Missourian]

You don't have the "right" to not be offended, nor the "right" to even suggest what words I use....pretty simple...eh kid?

If no one has the right to "suggest" what words you use, what the fuck gives you the right to bitch and whine about political correctness?

Political Correctness is nothing more than people using their free speech to criticize the speech of others.

No, it's an attempt to silence speech with which they disagree.

More as a technique to frame debate.

It happened to me in another tread today.

"The Texas abortion law caused many 'Women's Heath Centers' to close."

THE HELL IT DID!

The Texas abortion law caused many Abortion Clinics to close...those clinics could have continued to provide women's health services.

They could not preform abortions without a partnership with a hospital for surgical emergencies.

Nothing in the law had anything whatsoever to do with providing women's health services.

Other examples:

Undocumented worker instead of illegal immigrant.

Or pro-choice over pro-abortion.

Or resident in lieu of citizen.

 

[Antares]

"Don't have the right to not be offended" is pure unmitigated insanity. Seek professional help.

Btw if we "don't have the right not to be offended", then logically you must not have the right to tell Noomi to fuck off -- even though she's already in agreement about PC-itis. Or me for the same thing.

Sucks to be Roo.

Nope. Sucks to be you. Roo is right.

You have no "right" not to be offended.

You have a right to express your disagreement when you are offended, but if you had some actual "right" to NOT be offended, you'd have to have some way to vindicate that right.

You don't.

You can't sue me if my expressed beliefs happen to offend you. So, to put it as a smart old law school professor once noted: There is no "right" without a remedy and there is no "remedy" without a right.

I have a right to speak freely; and if whatever I share by way of some opinion happens to offend you, tough toenails.

Speak of the devil. I was just going to note, RE Doctor's post:

If no one has the right to "suggest" what words you use, what the fuck gives you the right to bitch and whine about political correctness?

-- that Roo's doo doo is remarkably akin to your own whining over here about boycotts "putting a thumb on the scale of the free market" -- which I noted amounts to belief in the concept of the free market, "as long as I like how others are using it".

Same thing here with the free market of ideas. Those ridiculously claiming nobody has a right to be offended, uttered in the act of being offended, are in fact practicing the same thought control they claim to disdain. Again, see post 101.

In short, the last sentence of your post, which is spot-on correct, directly contradicts this absurd idea of "having no right not to be offended". So you ended up right, and you don't even know how you got there.

Thanks for stopping by

Poor stupid fuck

You do NOT have the "right" to not be offended

I have the "right" to tell you or anyone else to fuck off....and there is nothing any of you can do about, ain't America grand?!!!!!

 

[Pogo]

Nope. Sucks to be you. Roo is right.

You have no "right" not to be offended.

You have a right to express your disagreement when you are offended, but if you had some actual "right" to NOT be offended, you'd have to have some way to vindicate that right.

You don't.

You can't sue me if my expressed beliefs happen to offend you. So, to put it as a smart old law school professor once noted: There is no "right" without a remedy and there is no "remedy" without a right.

I have a right to speak freely; and if whatever I share by way of some opinion happens to offend you, tough toenails.

Speak of the devil. I was just going to note, RE Doctor's post:

If no one has the right to "suggest" what words you use, what the fuck gives you the right to bitch and whine about political correctness?

-- that Roo's doo doo is remarkably akin to your own whining over here about boycotts "putting a thumb on the scale of the free market" -- which I noted amounts to belief in the concept of the free market, "as long as I like how others are using it".

Same thing here with the free market of ideas. Those ridiculously claiming nobody has a right to be offended, uttered in the act of being offended, are in fact practicing the same thought control they claim to disdain. Again, see post 101.

Thanks for stopping by

Your usual incoherence is once again on display.

As to my "thumb on the scales" comment, I of course stand by that since it is, simply and obviously, true. The market works a the market works. Toss in some "boycott," and it's no longer the market forces at play. You can deny it, but you aren't honest when you do so.

As for Roo's comment, again: he's right. And that means that YOU are (again) just wrong.

You have NO right not to be offended. In fact, it is validly a matter of indifference to all that you might BE offended. Who cares? Too fucking bad. Get over it, ya whiny bitch.

And once again you've contradicted yourself in one paragraph.
Having "no right not to be offended" -- two negatives canceling each other out -- means we are all required to be offended.

Read much?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Seattle banned the word 'citizen'? How then do you explain the fact that if you search the word 'citizen' on the seattle.gov website,

you get 2190 hits?

lol, the author of this thread needs to grow up and stop lying.

Because Seattle is a bunch of liberal hypocrites, are you that stupid?

Seattle bans words 'citizen' and 'brown bag' - Telegraph

Seattle officials call for ban on 'potentially offensive' language | Fox News

Seattle City Officials Aim To Ban ?Potentially Offensive? Language « CBS Seattle

City officials urge ban on 'potentially offensive' language | Local & Regional | Seattle News, Weather, Sports, Breaking News | KOMO News

Time for you to grow up and face the hypocrisy of your liberal buddies.

Do you know what Elliott Bronstein's job is?

 

[daveman]

Speak of the devil. I was just going to note, RE Doctor's post:


-- that Roo's doo doo is remarkably akin to your own whining over here about boycotts "putting a thumb on the scale of the free market" -- which I noted amounts to belief in the concept of the free market, "as long as I like how others are using it".

Same thing here with the free market of ideas. Those ridiculously claiming nobody has a right to be offended, uttered in the act of being offended, are in fact practicing the same thought control they claim to disdain. Again, see post 101.

Thanks for stopping by

Your usual incoherence is once again on display.

As to my "thumb on the scales" comment, I of course stand by that since it is, simply and obviously, true. The market works a the market works. Toss in some "boycott," and it's no longer the market forces at play. You can deny it, but you aren't honest when you do so.

As for Roo's comment, again: he's right. And that means that YOU are (again) just wrong.

You have NO right not to be offended. In fact, it is validly a matter of indifference to all that you might BE offended. Who cares? Too fucking bad. Get over it, ya whiny bitch.

And once again you've contradicted yourself in one paragraph.
Having "no right not to be offended" -- two negatives canceling each other out -- means we are all required to be offended.

Read much?

A right is not a requirement. You have the right to vote. You are not required to vote.

So...it looks like he's right, and you're wrong.

 

[Pogo]

Seattle banned the word 'citizen'? How then do you explain the fact that if you search the word 'citizen' on the seattle.gov website,

you get 2190 hits?

lol, the author of this thread needs to grow up and stop lying.

Because Seattle is a bunch of liberal hypocrites, are you that stupid?

Seattle bans words 'citizen' and 'brown bag' - Telegraph

Seattle officials call for ban on 'potentially offensive' language | Fox News

Seattle City Officials Aim To Ban ?Potentially Offensive? Language « CBS Seattle

City officials urge ban on 'potentially offensive' language | Local & Regional | Seattle News, Weather, Sports, Breaking News | KOMO News

Time for you to grow up and face the hypocrisy of your liberal buddies.

Do you know what Elliott Bronstein's job is?

I like the progression of these headlines:
"Seattle bans... " followed by
"Seattle officials call for ban..." followed by
"Seattle City Officials Aim To Ban..." followed by
"City officials urge ban..."

-- and not one of them says "ban" in their story.

Reading is a lost art.

 

[Pogo]

Your usual incoherence is once again on display.

As to my "thumb on the scales" comment, I of course stand by that since it is, simply and obviously, true. The market works a the market works. Toss in some "boycott," and it's no longer the market forces at play. You can deny it, but you aren't honest when you do so.

As for Roo's comment, again: he's right. And that means that YOU are (again) just wrong.

You have NO right not to be offended. In fact, it is validly a matter of indifference to all that you might BE offended. Who cares? Too fucking bad. Get over it, ya whiny bitch.

And once again you've contradicted yourself in one paragraph.
Having "no right not to be offended" -- two negatives canceling each other out -- means we are all required to be offended.

Read much?

A right is not a requirement. You have the right to vote. You are not required to vote.

So...it looks like he's right, and you're wrong.

I just said reading is a lost art, so thanks for the affirmation.

If you DO NOT have the right to NOT be offended, then your only option is TO BE offended. You have no other choice.

Thanks for playin'.

 

[daveman]

And once again you've contradicted yourself in one paragraph.
Having "no right not to be offended" -- two negatives canceling each other out -- means we are all required to be offended.

Read much?

A right is not a requirement. You have the right to vote. You are not required to vote.

So...it looks like he's right, and you're wrong.

I just said reading is a lost art, so thanks for the affirmation.

If you DO NOT have the right to NOT be offended, then your only option is TO BE offended. You have no other choice.

Thanks for playin'.

Good strategy: Hot bottom, dig.

You said:

Having "no right not to be offended" -- two negatives canceling each other out -- means we are all required to be offended.​

The two negatives cancelling each other out would leave you with: "the right to be offended".

As I correctly said, a right is not a requirement.

You're wrong. He's right. Stamping your feet and pouting won't change that. Threatening to hold your breath until you turn blue might, though. Give that a shot.

 

[Pogo]

A right is not a requirement. You have the right to vote. You are not required to vote.

So...it looks like he's right, and you're wrong.

I just said reading is a lost art, so thanks for the affirmation.

If you DO NOT have the right to NOT be offended, then your only option is TO BE offended. You have no other choice.

Thanks for playin'.

Good strategy: Hot bottom, dig.

You said:

Having "no right not to be offended" -- two negatives canceling each other out -- means we are all required to be offended.​

The two negatives cancelling each other out would leave you with: "the right to be offended".

As I correctly said, a right is not a requirement.

You're wrong. He's right. Stamping your feet and pouting won't change that. Threatening to hold your breath until you turn blue might, though. Give that a shot.

If. You. Have. No. Right. To. Not. Feel. Offended... THEN Not Feeling Offended. Is. Not. An. Option.

What is your first language? I'll translate.

 

[daveman]

I just said reading is a lost art, so thanks for the affirmation.

If you DO NOT have the right to NOT be offended, then your only option is TO BE offended. You have no other choice.

Thanks for playin'.

Good strategy: Hot bottom, dig.

You said:

Having "no right not to be offended" -- two negatives canceling each other out -- means we are all required to be offended.​

The two negatives cancelling each other out would leave you with: "the right to be offended".

As I correctly said, a right is not a requirement.

You're wrong. He's right. Stamping your feet and pouting won't change that. Threatening to hold your breath until you turn blue might, though. Give that a shot.

If. You. Have. No. Right. To. Not. Feel. Offended... THEN Not Feeling Offended. Is. Not. An. Option.

What is your first language? I'll translate.

I see you've decided to go with threatening to hold your breath until you turn blue.

You have no right to not feel offended = you have the right to feel offended.

A right is not a requirement. You're wrong, he's right.

 

[Antares]

I just said reading is a lost art, so thanks for the affirmation.

If you DO NOT have the right to NOT be offended, then your only option is TO BE offended. You have no other choice.

Thanks for playin'.

Good strategy: Hot bottom, dig.

You said:

Having "no right not to be offended" -- two negatives canceling each other out -- means we are all required to be offended.​

The two negatives cancelling each other out would leave you with: "the right to be offended".

As I correctly said, a right is not a requirement.

You're wrong. He's right. Stamping your feet and pouting won't change that. Threatening to hold your breath until you turn blue might, though. Give that a shot.

If. You. Have. No. Right. To. Not. Feel. Offended... THEN Not Feeling Offended. Is. Not. An. Option.

What is your first language? I'll translate.

LMAO.

Geeeezus kid, weak.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If it this story were true, you'd think the rightwingers would be cheering; they're always going on and on about how much better the universe would be if the power of government were at the local level.

 

[Pogo]

Good strategy: Hot bottom, dig.

You said:

Having "no right not to be offended" -- two negatives canceling each other out -- means we are all required to be offended.​

The two negatives cancelling each other out would leave you with: "the right to be offended".

As I correctly said, a right is not a requirement.

You're wrong. He's right. Stamping your feet and pouting won't change that. Threatening to hold your breath until you turn blue might, though. Give that a shot.

If. You. Have. No. Right. To. Not. Feel. Offended... THEN Not Feeling Offended. Is. Not. An. Option.

What is your first language? I'll translate.

I see you've decided to go with threatening to hold your breath until you turn blue.

You have no right to not feel offended = you have the right to feel offended.

-- which leaves "feeling offended" as the only option left.

You have no other option because you have no "right" to feel anything else. That's what not having a right to feel anything other than offended MEANS.

Jesus Christ on a bicycle, how dense do you have to be to not-get this?

And I'm compelled to reiterate, you authoritarian wackos who believe you can legislate what people feel -- are insane.

 

[Antares]

If it this story were true, you'd think the rightwingers would be cheering; they're always going on and on about how much better the universe would be if the power of government were at the local level.

What a stupid fuck you are.

We're always going on about NO Gov intervention.

You are female, aren't you?

 

[Antares]

What the hell, you were to lazy to check to see if it was true or not and assumed it wasn't true, you think the opinion of a lazy ass idiot is going to carry weight? Oh wait, you are a liberal, you think you are privileged.

Uhhh-- you have it 180 degrees bass-ackwards there, Ted Baxter. The OP is false; there is no "ban" and there is no "law". And that was ascertained by reading the article.

Which I understand is available to everyone. What a world.

You don't have the "right" to not be offended, nor the "right" to even suggest what words I use....pretty simple...eh kid?

You have every "right" in the world to "feel" offended,most women (like yourself) demand it......

"Being" and "feeling" are two different things.....your feminism betrays you.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

What the f*ck dude...

How is "brown bag" and "citizen" offensive? I mean what the shit lol

Who gets offended by citizen and brown bag.

At this rate, talking will be banned because like every word in the dictionary will be racist. We'll have to resort to sign language or some shit.

Tea bag is OK.

Brown bag might offend someone... somehow.

That is someone who isn't a tea bagger.

I know.... I don't understand insipid leftist bullshit either.

THE SKY IS FALLING ...
THE SKY IS FALLING ...

:roll eyes:

First, nothing was "banned".

Second, maybe they could use this that I just posted below.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2383705/Silence-internet-trolls-Web-button-replaces-abusive-comments-words-love-rainbow-candyfloss.html?ico=sciencetech^headlines

I hope not cuz its way too much fun watching the nutters head's explode while they try to control every aspect of our private lives while whining about NOTHING.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I don't give a damn if you're offended by what I say. I'll try not to be a jerk but if I feel the need to say something...I'll damn well say it.