changing the name of things is important. the change itself tells you that a certain group has power over everyone else. Tell your kids to call it indian style at school and see what they come home and say. They will be intimidated and castigated for it. death always by a thousand cuts

What is wrong with the practice in the wiki text as long as people aren't forcing you? If they are using force, it doesn't matter if they're forcing people not to split their infinitives or use a different word for something. I can't stand when people won't stand up and honestly say what they think. But I don't see PC, as I understand it, stopping that.

I found out a few weeks ago at my kids' school that Indian style is now called criss-cross. I still call it the word I learned first, Indian style, and so far no one cares. I'm linguistically stuck in 1980 Wisconsin. I don't see the big deal about what we call things.

I would like to add, this definition is clearly biased. but I wanted to point out the vast array of areas one concept covers. It is designed precisely to shut you up.

you are only seeing the tip of the iceberg. here is wiki on it. I ask you, if all of these areas are "taboo" then where is the 1st Amendment?
"Political correctness (adjectivally, politically correct; both forms commonly abbreviated to PC) is a term that refers to language, ideas, or policies that address perceived or actual discrimination against or alienation of politically, socially or economically disadvantaged groups. The term usually implies that these social considerations are excessive or of a purely "political" nature. These groups most prominently include those defined by gender, race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation and disability.
Historically, the term was a colloquialism used in the early-to-mid 20th century by Communists and Socialists in political debates, referring pejoratively to the Communist "party line", which provided for "correct" positions on many matters of politics. The term was adopted in the later 20th century by the New Left, applied with a certain humour to condemn sexist or racist conduct as "not politically correct". By the early 1990s, the term was adopted by US conservatives as a pejorative term for all manner of attempts to promote multiculturalism and identity politics, particularly in terms of attempts to introduce new terms that sought to leave behind discriminatory baggage attached to older ones, and conversely to try to make older ones taboo."

give me another logical assumption as to motive then.
facts:
1. there is national hysteria over guns in the US
2. they did not just ask that he come without a uniform

I understood and agree with everything until you get the end and assume we have the standard power play. That's what I was interested in.

let's take this on logically. If the police are performing their jobs correctly in that community, then having a policeman at your school (police are hired to patrol schools) just increases the safety of the parents and the students. If the police are not performing their job correctly and so therefore represent a threat in that community, then that problem would not be solved by asking him not to wear his uniform or come unarmed to the school.
If we assume the police are in general performing their jobs correctly, then the request is completely illogical and the principal should have shown some guts and the parent complainers that their complaints were foundation less.
That did not happen, so it is reasonable to assume we have the standard power play against guns.

colorado fights hard to lose its wild west image lol

"I don't mind paying the property taxes so that there's something there for the poor."
At what percentage of your income being taken for property tax would you start to mind... and I want an honest numeric answer... think about it and get back to me.

I agree. Just leave those places. I don't even care to put my kids in public school so we can get a sample of it. I don't mind paying the property taxes so that there's something there for the poor. The mall can do whatever they want, but it's concerning that apparently the market will bear that. It seems like the idea of someone telling you what to do is becoming more acceptable. I hope it swings back the other way.

I SAID..it "reeks"! (you changed my words...AGAIN) If something reeks, cgervasi,...what does that mean? (Use logic now.... you can do it.....)

Well, c'mon kh... bandanas ARE offensive and frightening...what did you expect?
(What's up with bandanas anyway??? Gang members have them so all bandanas wearers are suspect??...or is the cowboys they're trying to keep out?)

I just said intuition as another word for your comment that it "smells" likes intimidation. I thought if I wrote "It just smells bad to you," it might sound like I was belittling that claim, so I said "intuition" to indicate I take it seriously. I didn't mean to make something up.

I think it's the age old power grab. used to be, when I was in school, parents ruled. nowadays, the rules and barriers schools put up tend to end up making law-abiding parents troublemakers before their kids enter the schools. That is my parenting experience with the school system where I raised my kids-and I've heard many, many stories like it. btw, it's no different in a national park or mall. this is kinda funny. we hike alot, and when my kids were young we had finished this 14er, but when we were at the top, my husband's glasses blew off his face in a strong gust of wind over the side of the mountain. anyway, we climb down and go to pearle vision in our local mall still dressed for hiking. all four of us had bandanas tied around our necks-they are handy for all things outdoor. anyway, we were tired, trying to figure out a new pair of glasses and we were approached by security officers who said we were not allowed to wear bandanas. it wasn't enough for us to take them off, we were escorted from the mall. these silly rules/requests are everywhere, but I do think power/control is partially behind the rule making. It is important to stand up to that nonsense. who pays who? the schools exist because of YOUR property taxes, the mall is there for YOUR shopping, the national parks are there because of YOUR taxes, etc.
If I want to come into MY kids' school and see them or get them, I will do it. My mom never had to wear a name tag and "sign in" to get me from school. why the heck should I have to to get my kids? Power through intimidation. and most fall into line like so many ducks following their mother

I know the behavior you're talking about, but I didn't know it was called PC. I thought PC was changes in language like the change from handicapped to disabled.

It's good to be nice and not be offensive without reason, but I can't stand the rest of the PC you describe. It reminds me of the OWS people. I agree with small parts of what I think they're saying, but I couldn't stand their complaint "I did everything I was told. Why isn't it working for me?" It shouldn't be a huge logical leap for them to work out doing what you're told doesn't get results and they should start doing stuff that makes sense to them (i.e. find someone's problem and help them with it) rather than what they're told.

I don't believe in intuition. (There you go again making up stuff so you can keep arguing instead of thinking about what I'm REALLY SAYING). I believe in following things to their logical conclusion. What makes sense and what doesn't. So...What other intent could drive making such a comment, "we didn't mean to offend"...really...what DID he/she mean to intend?... it was an intimidation tactic...intended to imply a wrong doing or bad decision making on the cops part to show up at a school fully in uniform and fully armed. However it was NOT the cop who had bad decision making in this situation. He did NOTHING wrong.
I'm done discussing this. Make up whatever you want about me.
p.s. The desk I'm sitting at right now really is here. I can see it, I can feel it, and it's holding items on top of it.. I'm sure you could argue that I'm imagining it or that it's just my intuition telling me it's here, or that it has something to do with my political beliefs...but the desk DOES exist.

Oh....we finally agree on something then.

Political correctness is a way to shut people up. To keep them from talking...from saying what they truly think. I believe strongly that PC is a big factor in how we've gotten to the place we are right now. People won't speak up, won't stand up for anything, ignore plenty and aren't even capable of an honest discussion. It's also bred over-sensitivity (that's offensive, this is offensive, you hurt my feelings -oh whoa whoa whoa-, be nice, oh don't say that!, etc etc)..and it's making generations of cry babies who think life is fair and everyone deserves a safety net no matter what. Political correction has nothing to do with "politics" or "political parties", or "who's president". It has to do with sheep trying to comply with what they're told to do (by their boss, their preacher, their friends, their parents....and sometimes people in government too. You can manipulate a lot of people with guilt and emotions...telling them they're offensive shuts them up in a hurry and stops a conversation OR any questions they may have wanted to ask.). Did I really need to explain that?

Your intuition just points to intimidation. "I didn't mean to offend" smells that way to me (smells like straw man) too, although I can't tell anything from the limited info.

My question becomes "why does your intuition point to intimidation," which I don't expect you to answer b/c intuition is ineffable and very hard to explain in a short comment. I think there's something interesting there, but I probably won't come to understand it in a message forum.

As for the joking poisoning the well about me having a bias, that points to exactly what I'm trying to understand-- why, assuming I don't have a hidden agenda, my intuition is so different from other Gulch members.

It came from this phrase, which I apparently misunderstood: "the framework of intimidation/pressure fueled by political correctness"

No way. I'm addressing khalling's comment that excessive policing is scary. Along the same vein, it's scary when people (no one here) say we don't need guns at all for protection b/c we have police. In other words, policing itself isn't scary, but turning over all protection to someone else is scary.

Oh. (and yes...a "defect" for sure.)

I was making a 'point', and using a well documented 'knee jerk' reaction to something offensive! This was meant to be satirical....

But...as far as I am concerned, the parent that complained has the intellectual defect required to call for 'HELP', in this situation.

No one made a 911 call. Now YOU'RE making stuff up, Rocky. That facts ma'am..only the facts!

" I'm starting to think you're the principal of the school in question."

Or: he is the one that made the '911' call...!

That's where my money lies.... ;-)