Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MrLucky who wrote (15911)	4/4/2006 1:39:01 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541658

I don't see this as just PC. Of course it's PC. You insist on "terrorists" and find "insurgents" unacceptable. No different than insisting on calling those who respond to fires "firefighters" rather than "firemen." PC is about insisting on the "correct" label and reading disrespect into other labels that, while they communicate just fine, don't have the preferred spin. Anyone who says "insurgents" is perceived soft on terrorism. Any who says "firemen" is perceived as a male chauvinist. If you don't want to be perceived as a bad guy, you must use the politically correct word. IMO folks who insist on political correctness, er, "have issues."

To: MrLucky who wrote (15911)	4/4/2006 1:46:14 PM
From: Dale Baker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541658

Imputing "freedom fighter" to "insurgent" is not a widely held view in my experience. We understand you want the Post to conform more to your expectations, but that's not very likely, you have to admit. Has anyone else written to the Post to object? Has their ombudsman addressed the issue? Since no one can tell me how this impacts the actual situation on the ground in Iraq - only the political parlors of America - I don't see a lot of import myself. To each their own. I find a lot of the verbiage on both sides of the Iraq debate excessive and misleading, agenda-driven rather than seeking illumination. But I would not include this instance among those, IMHO.