I am American, in the clear, my KL-7 is deadlined.

There. Did I make it onto another list yet?
:D

Hillbilly 😝
 

I had a 6th Group teammate from West Virginia, educated to a GED , he preferred
"Mountain William" :D

[QUOTE=SPEC4;589143]In today's world, educated TO a GED no longer applies...

I guess today, if you feel like you earned something, it should be given to you.

FWIW, the bias free language guide referenced in the OP seems to have disappeared from the UNH website.

MOO, the discussion of the guide in this thread represents the types of lost opportunities that are occurring with increasing frequency in circles frequented by the American political right.

Specifically, IRT the passage quoted in post #2, above.IMO, the passage is an invitation to all Americans to reflect upon how language is used to marginalize groups whose lives and careers afford them sensibilities and mindsets that are outside of more common/shared experiences.

Americans have a centuries' old tradition of marginalizing economically, socially, culturally, and politically members of the armed services following wars--especially ones that were unpopular and costly. In the face of unremitting vitriol that is exemplified by many comments in this thread toward "diverse identities and experiences," will more civilians be motivated to take a more thoughtful approach to the ways they write, talk, read, and think about members of the armed forces and veterans?

RE: Sigaba

I believe I understand the intent of your post; discussions regarding the sudden explosion of "identities" and how to refer to them in such fashion that they do not feel marginalized.

I can understand the academic pursuit of such discussions. The disconnect between what you suggest we should do, and actually doing it is that I, for one, am not open minded enough to care whether its OK to use the word "queer" or "fag" this week or not. For me, I have no desire to look beyond "dude" or "chick", "sir" or "mam" and to try to discern whether to use post-trans, pre-trans, trans-woman, hermaphrodite etc... Furthermore, I assert that by allowing all these weighted and contextually sensitive adjectives into popular language actually hinders what could have been otherwise valuable debate. How much time and money have we spent attempting to shift the popular conservative/right leaning mindset into "tolerance" all the while shoving that same group of people into the category of "intolerant" and "bigoted"?

Tolerance and acceptance works both ways. You can't call folks "bible clinging, gun toting, hillbillies" while appealing to their logical side to accept and EMBRACE things that disgusts them.

I welcome your thoughts.

While you may not be open-minded enough to have these types of discussions, I think you did a pretty bang-up job over all. Especially considering the duplicitous hypocrisy of the opposition that you so well laid out in the above quote.

The problems is that dope smoking, smelly, hippie liberals will zealously derail, discontinue, or redirect a discussion on solving the mystery of the universe to correct a perceived wrong because one scientist called a tranny "dude"...
...and they do it ALL the time.

Solving our nations ills has stopped being the problem in favor of ensuring that the larger problem of social justice is fixed first. Peoples acceptance of ONE-SPECIFC-TRANSLATION of our nations ills trumps all other issues.
...it is no longer about "solving for 'X'" the issue is simply to advance "the" agenda and most people (especially the pseudo-intellectuals that litter this aMErican continent) don't even have a clue what the agenda is; they just trumpet whatever they hear from Arianna Huffington or whatever they hear from the nearest collegiate liberal watering hole.


So...
...lets look at this "problematic" term, "AMERICAN"

It might cause grief with those from "South America" really?
...how?

Did Pele ever identify as south American?
...or did he ONLY embrace his "Brazilian-ness" because he was confused about which America he came from?
...where exactly is the country of "South America" located?

At least "African" confusion between the continent and the country can be explained by the COUNTRY of South Africa.
Africa = continent
South Africa = country
...are all Africans black?
No - because not every country in Africa is populated by the same race.
Are all south Americans any one specific color?
No - because ITS A CONTINENT

Its not because of racism, or a hatred of the poor, or a dislike for immigrants, its because Africa and South America are continents.
Continent = A large land mass - not a single country

But the idiotic self loathing, addicted to their own mental-masturbation, liberals that make up "AMERICAN" academia can't make it past their first cup of decaffeinated-soy-latte without finding some sort of sort of Marxist conflict theory attached to every facet of AMERICAN life...
...and before I forget, go fuck yourself, University of New Hampshire. Fuck you very much.


There is even a country of the south American continent with "America" in its name.
...not even as much as a territory.
The ONLY country in the entire western hemisphere with "America" in its name is....


...wait for it






..........waaaaaiiiiit for it







The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA




'Murica mother fuckers.
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
...its where "Americans" live.

...its not where Brazilians or Argentinians or Chileans or Peruvians or Venezuelans because they all have THEIR OWN FUCKING COUNTRY


Limousine Liberals should spend a few dollars on a fucking globe before they try to convince everyone how smart they are.
...we know liberals are intelligent. I'd never argue that.
Ever.

Liberals are insanely well educated. In fact, their ivory tower educations will eventually be the downfall of this great nation.
...but they are a hapless band of idiots that couldn't hit water if you threw them out of a boat. They are a breed that knows the price of EVERYTHING, but understand the value of nothing.


Just my opinion.

Spot on - in fact, a dead center X. Could not agree more. And I have ZERO interest in engaging individuals or groups with opposing viewpoints in discussion - meaningful (highly unlikely) or not; especially in light of their penchant for redefining reality to match their delusions.

Billy, that is perfect and I am going to be using that one often. :lifter

With all due credit to you of course. ;)

That's what they said 50 yrs ago about "the New Math" - "it's to make you think." That didn't work out so well either. Hell, if I wanted to think I could sit & ponder Ms. Tuccinardi, the girls' gym teacher.

Money quote for me from Hand that MR2 cited above.
Now back to aiding & abetting oppression.

Sigaba,
You sure had reach realllllllly far to include "the armed services" in your post....... keeping it real I guess. :rolleyes:

What did your 3rd paragraph have to do with this discussion, other than to adding the "armed forces "makes it an acceptable branch into a Military Discussion Board, and pray-tell what" unremitting vitriol" is included or excluded from your latest.

I am captured by the thought of all the Naval History research lost forever when you are forced to use you time to issue your well reasoned, and on point commentary.

SnT

He and his academic buds are working on re-writing history, section 8 housing and many other methods of CHANGE.