Sheesh, I'm careless today: Your poor opinion of the decision doesn’t mean it WAS made rashly, is what I meant to say. I guess my point is that the decision may have been the subject of a good amount of thought and consideration, you don't know. Which makes me think your description of it as "knee-jerk" is nothing more than an attempt to color the argument.
Okay, Xeal. I think we've probably both taken this about as far as possible (whew). But I do have one last question: why do you describe the government's reaction as "knee-jerk"? Where do you get that? The Commissioner's quoted comments are very mild and measured, and I don't see any other evidence in the article that supports your assumption. Your poor opinion of the decision doesn't mean it wasn't made rashly.
Sometimes personal attacks are distractions, and sometimes they’re deserved (and accurate) criticisms. Anyone taking the trouble to wade through our exchange can decide which category my latest comments fall under. Thanks for the debate.
@Xeal:
Your concern about feminist groups exerting their will over local government ignores the fact that employees of the local government wanted the change long before the feminist publisher arrived on the scene. You object more to the feminist ideology than you do to the actual change to the signs – so the problem isn’t so much that they’re changing the signs, it’s that the change was promoted by someone with an ideology you don’t like. Again and again, you’re ignoring the women who were directly affected by the signs, and I think that’s dismissive and inappropriate.
And there actually is no difference between an innocent mistake and willful ignorance, in the sense that either can result in a biased expression. So while I appreciate your “nuance of meaning” argument, it just doesn’t hold water. They’re big orange signs that refer to women as men. There's no nuance there. If that offends the very women using the signs, I won’t tell them their wrong: it is clear sexism, albeit a minor form. Of course sexism is often far, far more harmful, absolutely, yes. In the larger context, this is a tiny thing – but so is the remedy. If you want to start scrutinizing the budgets of public works departments, knock yourself out; I’m quite sure you’ll find more egregious waste than a department painting over some old signs to show respect to half their workforce.
You’re like an infant trying to participate in an adult conversation, Tim. No matter how hard you try to make the words, it still comes out as gurgles and vomit.
I am being harsh with you, yes, because the position you’ve presented here is pretty appalling – and I don’t even necessarily mean your position on the sign. The article obviously pushed one of your buttons; so be it. Maybe a therapist could get to the bottom of that hysterical quagmire, but I can’t.
What actually appalls me is this:
That you suggest we place more importance on ourselves rather than others. That you deem offensive behavior to be offensive only when it’s directed at you. That you consider the weak undeserving of help by dint of their weakness. That you have so little appreciation for people who struggled for rights you enjoy. That when confronted with people working for small changes in their own lives, your first concern is how their gain might harm you. (And before you start complaining again that I’m twisting what you say, I’ll offer to footnote this list using quotes lifted directly from your comments, in full context.)
Now I actually have gone and made this about you, you’re right – but if I were to respond to the actual content of your comments, I didn’t really have a choice.
Well, that’s rich: a guy who has trouble writing a comment that doesn’t include a mindless insult claims that I set thought back 50 years.
No one is ignorant for speaking out, but some people certainly show their ignorance as soon as their fingers hit the keyboard. You want to weigh in on my position, really? Then go ahead and demonstrate how any one point I’ve made is baseless. Be my guest. Back up any of your accusations with just a tiny bit of reasoned thought and explanation, and I might not be quite so critical.
“If someone wants to call me a man, they are welcome to.” That’s great for you, but it’s wildly unfair of you to ask that of other women -- women who have already made it clear that they don’t want to be referred to as men. Again, what YOU want as an individual is just not the point. It seems very, very hard for you to understand that you, personally, are neither the subject of the article nor the center of the issue.
“If they didn’t get what they wanted they didn’t want it bad enough when they tried to get it.” That’s all it takes to overcome discrimination? The desire for it to be gone? Have you ever read a newspaper or a history book? If you think you’ve done fine without anyone else fighting for your rights as a woman, then I’ll say again: you don’t know how you got where you are. You might disagree with this sign change, but it was exactly this kind of issue, and thousands more – many bigger but some just as small – that had to be overcome for you to have the rights you have. I know you’d love to take full credit for your position in the world, but you can’t. Another bubble burst, I’m afraid.
And finally, you can contend that the change was a knee-jerk reaction to an assault by a radical feminist, but the article doesn’t bear that out. The Public Works Commissioner said, “We hadn't really thought about it before. I said, let's do it.” The union rep said, “It is a little bit biased to say 'Men Working.’ Women are working, too.” Those are both perfectly measured and reasonable responses, and hardly sound like comments made under duress from an oppressive feminist agenda. You have gone so far out of your way to construct a mythology of evil feminism around this story that it borders on hysteria.
@Xeal:
Oh, for cripes sake, Xeal. If you’re going to argue your point based on the differences between guns and signs, I’m done. The analogy was simply meant to illustrate that the effect of our actions can be far different from their intent. If the one thing you take away from that is that guns aren’t the same things as signs, well, there’s really no point in continuing our debate. We both knew that already.
I’m not claiming that the person who made the sign was sexist, nor am I claiming that the sign a represents a “systematic” bias against women. When addressing the immediate remedy, it simply doesn’t matter if the bias is intentional or not: you actually DON’T have to consider the speaker’s true intent when deciding whether or not to correct it. Nor does it matter that the signs are still effective at getting people to slow down! You don’t pardon a prejudiced statement just because it accomplishes its professed intent.
You would have been happy had they just released a statement that said they’d replace the signs as needed. Me too, frankly. But I’m not going to get bent out of shape that a city the size of Atlanta is making such a minuscule change, particularly when it sends the entirely admirable message that they won’t tolerate sexual bias in their workplace, not even temporarily. Good for them.
"If you are going to take up a cause, you go big or don’t go at all." This is garbage notion, Evilbeagle, and the more insistent you are in promoting it, the more absurd your argument becomes. It doesn't make sense theoretically, and it doesn't make sense practically. We correct wrongs when we see them, where we see them, big and small. That is how progress is made on a thousand fronts, every day, around the world. We can't afford to let the small things slide until all the big ones are resolved. I guarantee that you apply that very logic to your own life a dozen times a day. We all do.
Describe how my analogies are inaccurate, rather than just claiming they “suck,” and I’ll listen. I suspect, though, that the reason you find them so distasteful is that they quickly reveal the fundamental flaws in your logic. In any case, your complaints are obviously hollow: I tell analogies about hunger and litter, and you tell analogies about toilets and chickens and dragons and rape. You spend a little too much time criticizing the same constructs you use yourself for me to take that seriously.
"Checking out my information" means reading the article, just FYI. People take up battles for others all the time, because they recognize that weak does not equal wrong. And it's very telling that you haven't once mentioned the women who work in Public Works, in all the hundreds of words you've written here. You've been too busy demonizing "radical feminists" and jabbering about yourself to consider the people who are actually involved in the issue. You almost got beat up in a parking lot once, so now you've got some crazy chip on your shoulder that prevents you from seeing the simple, fundamental issue at hand with any sort of clarity. It's a sign that refers to women as men, Evilbeagle. That is sexist. Sexism is wrong, and the sign should be changed. You can describe it in whatever convoluted terms you care to, but that's the issue at hand.
"If you are piddling around with the little things, and not dealing with the big ones, you are not getting anything done." That's another obvious – and I mean seriously obvious – false statement. You are getting things done, but little things – and many little things equal big things. There is clear value in incremental progress. And I do like taking things out of context, yes, because it's a very simple way of exposing feeble logic. You invoked African Americans and the mentally challenged in your first response to my comments, and you've expressed many of your points in the context of your own life, so your complaint rings more than a little hollow.
I won't tell you that I don't care more about myself and the people in my life than I do about strangers, because I do. You're right, that's human nature. But I would never suggest that society would be better off if we were all even more self-centered. As for high horses, I think your attempts to define the causes that are worthy of other people's attention puts you right up there.
At this point, you're pushing your argument in opposing, contradictory directions. You suggest that everyone focus on themselves and the specific problems in their own lives, while simultaneously suggesting everyone ignore those specific problems if there are larger ones that remain. The former is antisocial, and the latter is absurd. If a mosquito lands on your arm, it's perfectly reasonable to swat the mosquito – no one expects you to build and fund a laboratory to study the problem of mosquitoes. Some people will go to that length, which is great, but it's absurd to expect it from everyone.
But since you don't like my analogies, I'll express the same idea in context. Women who work in the Public Works department filed a complaint about the signs years ago, apparently to no avail. Those women were looking out for themselves and taking action in their own lives, so you must think that's good, right? Oh no, wait, you must think that's bad, because they didn't address the fundamental source of discrimination! The problem, Evilbeagle, is that there is no fundamental source of discrimination, and the dragon you mentioned earlier doesn't have a head – it has thousands. Now it has one less. We should all be glad.
"Language, again, doesn’t change an attitude in an individual." That is a demonstrably false statement. It simply isn’t true, no matter how many times you say it. Spend a little time reading about the work of Benjamin Whorf (and the very recent studies that have supported it) or just Google the term "linguistic determinism."
"Making an issue of the little things when there are bigger things to do is really almost cowardly." Absurd. According to that logic, we should disregard every opportunity for progress in the world until we've all agreed on The One Most Important Issue and solved that. Don't feed the hungry kid standing in front of you if there's a hungrier kid halfway around the world. Don't mend any broken bones until cancer is cured. Don't even pick up that piece of litter, because there's probably a bigger one somewhere.
"Perhaps if people worried about the immediate things in their lives, they would be better off." Oof. That one takes the cake. I hardly think a more self-obsessed society is an ideal. That, and this contention that offensive behavior only warrants your attention when it's directed at you specifically, speak volumes about your narcissistic character -- and make it possible for me to comfortably disregard every other thing you have to say. Thanks for the debate.
@Xeal:
I'm sure this fictional character you've invented for yourself would be undeterred by a "Men Working" sign, yes, but your eloquent little fantasy doesn't compete with the reality that the women who worked for Atlanta Public Works complained about the signs years ago. And my male/female comment wasn't baiting: you claimed that the less-educated can't be expected to understand the nuance of language, but how much nuance is there, really, in big orange sign that refers to women as men?
The bulk of your argument is based on an obvious confusion of "intent" and "effect." Here's an analogy to illustrate my point: say it's New Year's Eve, and I don't have any fireworks, so I decide to celebrate by shooting my gun into the air. Unfortunately, one of the bullets comes down in a neighbor's yard and hits his dog. Someone yells out, "Hey c-dub! You just shot your neighbor's dog!" Do I say, "No I didn't! I'm not shooting dogs! I'm celebrating!" and keep firing away? Or do I STOP PULLING THE TRIGGER and go help the dog? I certainly didn't set out to shoot the dog, but that doesn't mean the dog wasn't shot.
Likewise, the people who made, purchased and used the old road signs didn't set out to promulgate a bias, but that doesn't mean that wasn't the effect. The intent, in either case, is simply not germane to the immediate remedy. It doesn't make a difference.
I'm glad you posted that, because it may have revealed the precise misconception at the heart of your argument. You asked the right question – Will the signs harm women’s chances of obtaining construction jobs? – but you provided the wrong answer. It absolutely does, because it promotes the subtle bias that says that women aren’t suited to such jobs. And you should consider the notion that while the sign might have no such effect on you (as doubtful as that is) others may not respond similarly.
Your contention that the original maker of the sign held no bias is likely accurate, but also immaterial. We have the option of carrying on any number of historical biases, many of which were considered innocuous when instigated. That doesn’t mean we should do so, particularly when the alternative is so exceptionally easy and inexpensive. Is this specific issue life-and-death? No, absolutely not. But when we’re confronted with such biases, big or small, we should strive to correct them.
Also, if you’re concerned that “real bigots get a free pass if they use the right words,” then attack THAT issue. Don’t attack the folks that are trying to move things in the right direction, even if they’re not doing in the exact same way you would.
And finally, a bit of an aside: if you don’t think we shouldn’t expect the lesser-educated to acknowledge the distinction between male and female, I’d say you’re setting the bar extraordinary low.
@Evilbeagle and Xeal: The argument that we should ignore small issues until the larger ones are resolved is a complete non-starter. Meaningful change happens – and has to happen – at every level, and at every scale. Criticizing someone for making a change for the better just because it doesn’t happen to be your top priority is hopelessly arrogant. (I’m sure that argument falls on deaf ears, in Evilbeagle’s case at least, since she’s so proud of her arrogance. Her own claims that she’s arrogant – and that’s okay because she doesn’t care what other people think – and that the individual trumps the collective are further proof that she doesn’t have any meaningful understanding of what it means to contribute to society.)
@Tim Giachetti: Your “inanimate object” argument is likewise fundamentally flawed. Books are inanimate objects, as are weapons, and both are powerful. Inanimate does not equal benign. (And “moors”? Seriously? Moors are either bogs or Berbers, so maybe words actually are meaningless to you.)
@Evilbeagle again: You should be offended by bigots who use PC language. We should all use language that reflects our true intent and meaning, absolutely – and if we did, there wouldn’t be signs that refer to women as men. You claim that’s not an example of sexism, but that is FUNDAMENTALLY sexist, by any definition. (And I don’t know if you should be so chuffed to have Tim on your side. Acquaint yourself with some of his other comments around here, and you might not be so eager to have him cheering you on. His logic and reason get him about two inches into a debate, and he throws insults and expletives from there. If I find him on the other side of an issue, I know I’m doing everything right.)
@Xeal: I used the comparison to the N-word because several commenters have claimed that words and language carry no weight. It was simply an example of how patently false that is. Going back to my original point, mindset and language support each other. The words we use influence our attitudes, so we should show some care in how we choose them.
Has anyone else noticed that Evilbeagle constantly frames this argument in the context of her own life, rather than that of the people actually affected by the story? That says pretty much everything.
Sometimes personal attacks are distractions, and sometimes they’re deserved (and accurate) criticisms. Anyone taking the trouble to wade through our exchange can decide which category my latest comments fall under. Thanks for the debate.
@Xeal:
Your concern about feminist groups exerting their will over local government ignores the fact that employees of the local government wanted the change long before the feminist publisher arrived on the scene. You object more to the feminist ideology than you do to the actual change to the signs – so the problem isn’t so much that they’re changing the signs, it’s that the change was promoted by someone with an ideology you don’t like. Again and again, you’re ignoring the women who were directly affected by the signs, and I think that’s dismissive and inappropriate.
And there actually is no difference between an innocent mistake and willful ignorance, in the sense that either can result in a biased expression. So while I appreciate your “nuance of meaning” argument, it just doesn’t hold water. They’re big orange signs that refer to women as men. There's no nuance there. If that offends the very women using the signs, I won’t tell them their wrong: it is clear sexism, albeit a minor form. Of course sexism is often far, far more harmful, absolutely, yes. In the larger context, this is a tiny thing – but so is the remedy. If you want to start scrutinizing the budgets of public works departments, knock yourself out; I’m quite sure you’ll find more egregious waste than a department painting over some old signs to show respect to half their workforce.
I am being harsh with you, yes, because the position you’ve presented here is pretty appalling – and I don’t even necessarily mean your position on the sign. The article obviously pushed one of your buttons; so be it. Maybe a therapist could get to the bottom of that hysterical quagmire, but I can’t.
What actually appalls me is this:
That you suggest we place more importance on ourselves rather than others. That you deem offensive behavior to be offensive only when it’s directed at you. That you consider the weak undeserving of help by dint of their weakness. That you have so little appreciation for people who struggled for rights you enjoy. That when confronted with people working for small changes in their own lives, your first concern is how their gain might harm you. (And before you start complaining again that I’m twisting what you say, I’ll offer to footnote this list using quotes lifted directly from your comments, in full context.)
Now I actually have gone and made this about you, you’re right – but if I were to respond to the actual content of your comments, I didn’t really have a choice.
Well, that’s rich: a guy who has trouble writing a comment that doesn’t include a mindless insult claims that I set thought back 50 years.
No one is ignorant for speaking out, but some people certainly show their ignorance as soon as their fingers hit the keyboard. You want to weigh in on my position, really? Then go ahead and demonstrate how any one point I’ve made is baseless. Be my guest. Back up any of your accusations with just a tiny bit of reasoned thought and explanation, and I might not be quite so critical.
“If someone wants to call me a man, they are welcome to.” That’s great for you, but it’s wildly unfair of you to ask that of other women -- women who have already made it clear that they don’t want to be referred to as men. Again, what YOU want as an individual is just not the point. It seems very, very hard for you to understand that you, personally, are neither the subject of the article nor the center of the issue.
“If they didn’t get what they wanted they didn’t want it bad enough when they tried to get it.” That’s all it takes to overcome discrimination? The desire for it to be gone? Have you ever read a newspaper or a history book? If you think you’ve done fine without anyone else fighting for your rights as a woman, then I’ll say again: you don’t know how you got where you are. You might disagree with this sign change, but it was exactly this kind of issue, and thousands more – many bigger but some just as small – that had to be overcome for you to have the rights you have. I know you’d love to take full credit for your position in the world, but you can’t. Another bubble burst, I’m afraid.
And finally, you can contend that the change was a knee-jerk reaction to an assault by a radical feminist, but the article doesn’t bear that out. The Public Works Commissioner said, “We hadn't really thought about it before. I said, let's do it.” The union rep said, “It is a little bit biased to say 'Men Working.’ Women are working, too.” Those are both perfectly measured and reasonable responses, and hardly sound like comments made under duress from an oppressive feminist agenda. You have gone so far out of your way to construct a mythology of evil feminism around this story that it borders on hysteria.
@Xeal:
Oh, for cripes sake, Xeal. If you’re going to argue your point based on the differences between guns and signs, I’m done. The analogy was simply meant to illustrate that the effect of our actions can be far different from their intent. If the one thing you take away from that is that guns aren’t the same things as signs, well, there’s really no point in continuing our debate. We both knew that already.
I’m not claiming that the person who made the sign was sexist, nor am I claiming that the sign a represents a “systematic” bias against women. When addressing the immediate remedy, it simply doesn’t matter if the bias is intentional or not: you actually DON’T have to consider the speaker’s true intent when deciding whether or not to correct it. Nor does it matter that the signs are still effective at getting people to slow down! You don’t pardon a prejudiced statement just because it accomplishes its professed intent.
You would have been happy had they just released a statement that said they’d replace the signs as needed. Me too, frankly. But I’m not going to get bent out of shape that a city the size of Atlanta is making such a minuscule change, particularly when it sends the entirely admirable message that they won’t tolerate sexual bias in their workplace, not even temporarily. Good for them.
Describe how my analogies are inaccurate, rather than just claiming they “suck,” and I’ll listen. I suspect, though, that the reason you find them so distasteful is that they quickly reveal the fundamental flaws in your logic. In any case, your complaints are obviously hollow: I tell analogies about hunger and litter, and you tell analogies about toilets and chickens and dragons and rape. You spend a little too much time criticizing the same constructs you use yourself for me to take that seriously.
"Checking out my information" means reading the article, just FYI. People take up battles for others all the time, because they recognize that weak does not equal wrong. And it's very telling that you haven't once mentioned the women who work in Public Works, in all the hundreds of words you've written here. You've been too busy demonizing "radical feminists" and jabbering about yourself to consider the people who are actually involved in the issue. You almost got beat up in a parking lot once, so now you've got some crazy chip on your shoulder that prevents you from seeing the simple, fundamental issue at hand with any sort of clarity. It's a sign that refers to women as men, Evilbeagle. That is sexist. Sexism is wrong, and the sign should be changed. You can describe it in whatever convoluted terms you care to, but that's the issue at hand.
"If you are piddling around with the little things, and not dealing with the big ones, you are not getting anything done." That's another obvious – and I mean seriously obvious – false statement. You are getting things done, but little things – and many little things equal big things. There is clear value in incremental progress. And I do like taking things out of context, yes, because it's a very simple way of exposing feeble logic. You invoked African Americans and the mentally challenged in your first response to my comments, and you've expressed many of your points in the context of your own life, so your complaint rings more than a little hollow.
I won't tell you that I don't care more about myself and the people in my life than I do about strangers, because I do. You're right, that's human nature. But I would never suggest that society would be better off if we were all even more self-centered. As for high horses, I think your attempts to define the causes that are worthy of other people's attention puts you right up there.
At this point, you're pushing your argument in opposing, contradictory directions. You suggest that everyone focus on themselves and the specific problems in their own lives, while simultaneously suggesting everyone ignore those specific problems if there are larger ones that remain. The former is antisocial, and the latter is absurd. If a mosquito lands on your arm, it's perfectly reasonable to swat the mosquito – no one expects you to build and fund a laboratory to study the problem of mosquitoes. Some people will go to that length, which is great, but it's absurd to expect it from everyone.
But since you don't like my analogies, I'll express the same idea in context. Women who work in the Public Works department filed a complaint about the signs years ago, apparently to no avail. Those women were looking out for themselves and taking action in their own lives, so you must think that's good, right? Oh no, wait, you must think that's bad, because they didn't address the fundamental source of discrimination! The problem, Evilbeagle, is that there is no fundamental source of discrimination, and the dragon you mentioned earlier doesn't have a head – it has thousands. Now it has one less. We should all be glad.
"Language, again, doesn’t change an attitude in an individual." That is a demonstrably false statement. It simply isn’t true, no matter how many times you say it. Spend a little time reading about the work of Benjamin Whorf (and the very recent studies that have supported it) or just Google the term "linguistic determinism."
"Making an issue of the little things when there are bigger things to do is really almost cowardly." Absurd. According to that logic, we should disregard every opportunity for progress in the world until we've all agreed on The One Most Important Issue and solved that. Don't feed the hungry kid standing in front of you if there's a hungrier kid halfway around the world. Don't mend any broken bones until cancer is cured. Don't even pick up that piece of litter, because there's probably a bigger one somewhere.
"Perhaps if people worried about the immediate things in their lives, they would be better off." Oof. That one takes the cake. I hardly think a more self-obsessed society is an ideal. That, and this contention that offensive behavior only warrants your attention when it's directed at you specifically, speak volumes about your narcissistic character -- and make it possible for me to comfortably disregard every other thing you have to say. Thanks for the debate.
@Xeal:
I'm sure this fictional character you've invented for yourself would be undeterred by a "Men Working" sign, yes, but your eloquent little fantasy doesn't compete with the reality that the women who worked for Atlanta Public Works complained about the signs years ago. And my male/female comment wasn't baiting: you claimed that the less-educated can't be expected to understand the nuance of language, but how much nuance is there, really, in big orange sign that refers to women as men?
The bulk of your argument is based on an obvious confusion of "intent" and "effect." Here's an analogy to illustrate my point: say it's New Year's Eve, and I don't have any fireworks, so I decide to celebrate by shooting my gun into the air. Unfortunately, one of the bullets comes down in a neighbor's yard and hits his dog. Someone yells out, "Hey c-dub! You just shot your neighbor's dog!" Do I say, "No I didn't! I'm not shooting dogs! I'm celebrating!" and keep firing away? Or do I STOP PULLING THE TRIGGER and go help the dog? I certainly didn't set out to shoot the dog, but that doesn't mean the dog wasn't shot.
Likewise, the people who made, purchased and used the old road signs didn't set out to promulgate a bias, but that doesn't mean that wasn't the effect. The intent, in either case, is simply not germane to the immediate remedy. It doesn't make a difference.
I'm glad you posted that, because it may have revealed the precise misconception at the heart of your argument. You asked the right question – Will the signs harm women’s chances of obtaining construction jobs? – but you provided the wrong answer. It absolutely does, because it promotes the subtle bias that says that women aren’t suited to such jobs. And you should consider the notion that while the sign might have no such effect on you (as doubtful as that is) others may not respond similarly.
Your contention that the original maker of the sign held no bias is likely accurate, but also immaterial. We have the option of carrying on any number of historical biases, many of which were considered innocuous when instigated. That doesn’t mean we should do so, particularly when the alternative is so exceptionally easy and inexpensive. Is this specific issue life-and-death? No, absolutely not. But when we’re confronted with such biases, big or small, we should strive to correct them.
Also, if you’re concerned that “real bigots get a free pass if they use the right words,” then attack THAT issue. Don’t attack the folks that are trying to move things in the right direction, even if they’re not doing in the exact same way you would.
And finally, a bit of an aside: if you don’t think we shouldn’t expect the lesser-educated to acknowledge the distinction between male and female, I’d say you’re setting the bar extraordinary low.
The argument that we should ignore small issues until the larger ones are resolved is a complete non-starter. Meaningful change happens – and has to happen – at every level, and at every scale. Criticizing someone for making a change for the better just because it doesn’t happen to be your top priority is hopelessly arrogant. (I’m sure that argument falls on deaf ears, in Evilbeagle’s case at least, since she’s so proud of her arrogance. Her own claims that she’s arrogant – and that’s okay because she doesn’t care what other people think – and that the individual trumps the collective are further proof that she doesn’t have any meaningful understanding of what it means to contribute to society.)
@Tim Giachetti:
Your “inanimate object” argument is likewise fundamentally flawed. Books are inanimate objects, as are weapons, and both are powerful. Inanimate does not equal benign. (And “moors”? Seriously? Moors are either bogs or Berbers, so maybe words actually are meaningless to you.)
@Evilbeagle again:
You should be offended by bigots who use PC language. We should all use language that reflects our true intent and meaning, absolutely – and if we did, there wouldn’t be signs that refer to women as men. You claim that’s not an example of sexism, but that is FUNDAMENTALLY sexist, by any definition. (And I don’t know if you should be so chuffed to have Tim on your side. Acquaint yourself with some of his other comments around here, and you might not be so eager to have him cheering you on. His logic and reason get him about two inches into a debate, and he throws insults and expletives from there. If I find him on the other side of an issue, I know I’m doing everything right.)
@Xeal:
I used the comparison to the N-word because several commenters have claimed that words and language carry no weight. It was simply an example of how patently false that is. Going back to my original point, mindset and language support each other. The words we use influence our attitudes, so we should show some care in how we choose them.