I humbly disagree.
And this is why,
@Nark.
It's not a matter of politically correct speech, which is largely a paper tiger constructed so columnists with approaching deadlines and nothing to talk about can crank about SEO'd "outrage o' the day" articles.
We, the
royal we, use loaded language because it separates the messenger from rational thought like:
- How many FAA inspectors have corn rows? Didn't read the article.
- How many FAA are thugs? Again, didn't read the article.
- What does having seen a couple "corn rowed thugs" attacking a bus driver have to do with the article in question? Didn't read the article.
The story was about an FAA inspector who did something ridiculous. There was nothing about "corn rows", "thugs" or whatever, but that language was interjected in the response to paint a particular picture.
Some of us called that into question instead which is what happens when we attempt to have a Socratic discussion on the topic, but you can't have a discussion built on logic and ration if you're not bringing knowledge to it.
It would almost be like a lecture on Pythagorean mathematics where someone walks in the room and says, "Math is for nerds, whoops, I didn't mean nerds as in geeks, I meant that candy popular with pre-teens in the 1980 that came in a variety of flavors" and expecting not to be challenged on it.
As the webmaster, I want you guys to challenge one another one ideas or when something doesn't pass the smell test. But approach it from the perspective that you seek a better understanding instead "The sky is purple! What?! You're challenging me on that?! PC POLICE!"
It turns out his outrage at the "thugs" was misplaced. We shouldn't celebrate that as much as we should ask "Why in the world, when there was an article written about an event where all the information was there, did you ignore that and assume?"
That's what interests me more than anything else.
If there was an airplane accident and I said,
"Must be a regional. They're all a bunch of talentless assclowns like @jtrain609". I would expect you to challenge me on the statement, especially if it wasn't a regional that was involved in the event in question. Challenging me on that wouldn't have anything to do with the fabled "political correctness" police.
Do you agree? Please, I'd love to hear your perspective on what, specifically,
I wrote.