Is the term "pet owner" political incorrect

Last week I caught a bit of the O'Reilly factor and O'Reilly was discussing commonplace terms that are now considered politically incorrect because some people find them offensive with John Stossel. First Stossel was saying how the phrase manhole cover is considered politically incorrect and people want it instead to be called a "personhole cover". Then Stossel mentioned pet owners. Apparently some people (probably animal rights activists) want it replaced with "pet guardian", I guess because people supposedly can't really own an animal.

Heck pretty soon people will probably want to do away with all terms involving the word "ownership" as ownership will seem like an antiquated concept. No more "business owners", they'll be called "business lessees" because they don't own their business in their own right, they lease it from the government which deigns to allow them to run a business and pursue a livelihood but theoretically has the right to take what revenues it desires from the business, tell the lessee how to run the business, and if need be dissolve the business at it whim.

No more home owners and property owners. They'll be "home grantees", because they don't own their land or house in their own right, they are granted the privilege of dwelling in that house by "the community" which can take back what it gives when it suits its needs?

Right is there where the far left - or maybe the bizarre left - want to go? After all some of them want to ban private schools or take people's estates from their heirs after they die - all this in the name of fighting "inequality" - so why not dictate what they can do with their homes when they're alive?

I'm sure some people think it is.

Political correctness really does need to die. Too often it's used as a way to shield against criticism.

What's the politically correct term for animal nutters?

Shouldn't those people be making themselves busy with something worthwhile like browsing YT for videos of people tickling kittens so they can report them for animal abuse?

Political correctness can go overboard and get silly but it has its place in moderation. The whole "I should be able to say whatever I want without social consequences" mindset is not particularly good for society.

Indeed, I have reason to believe that political correctness can be logical and reliable, but there are those who would abuse it for unnecessary reasons.

People and their feels.......

Animals are people too.

The only problem is you were watching Fox News.

pretty soon we wont be able to say anything.

I think there's a difference between being polite and being politically correct.

If you're polite you already are careful about what you say so you don't encounter any social consequences.

Political correctness, I believe, is solely meant to silence or belittle someone that is critical of something.

Don't be silly. Literally everything is politically incorrect today.

And though I take no issue with the term, I really consider my dog and cats to be more family than pets, so whatever...

People will complain about these people complaining, but there is a point to it. I imagine more pets would be looked after better if their is an implication of protector and caretaker. There are a lot of people who see pets as just decorations, and so they are neglected and abused more commonly then they should.

Political correctness and politeness are not synonymous but they operate under similar principles.

The phrase "critical of something" is rather vague; critical of what? I'm not saying you're wrong, but what are some examples?

I would argue that the anti-PC brigade often cry about people being too politically correct when they want to (for example) say racist or otherwise offensive things and still retain social acceptance.

I am definitely for better treatment of animals. If that means simply removing a sense of ownership to guardianship in order for them to live better lives, I do not know who would be against that besides those who follow Christian doctrine describing all creatures as under the rule of man, in particular.

This is actually a good point and is far more thoughtful than the usual knee jerk anti-PC reaction.

People will complain about a "PC" focus on terminology, but words/terms are actually quite powerful.

Being critical of the Hasidim and being called an anti-semite, for example.

I don't think that's the case at all. Certain speech is pretty much ill-regarded no matter how it's used. But silencing critics---and discussions---under the pretense of not being politically correct is what those of us against political correctness are worried about.

Ill-regarded why who? There are plenty of people who don't give a shit if someone makes racist remarks but pull the PC card when someone tries to call out the one who made the racist remark. This mostly happens in instances of subtle racism.

Do you think the term n****r is highly regarded? Or c**n? Or sand-n****r? Or f****t? Or s**t? Or c**t?

I apologize about censoring these certain words, but no doubt a certain mod would try and get me banned if I used them in their uncensored forms, even if they were in a non-derogatory fashion.

The point I'm trying to make is most people regarded the above terms as vile things to say. But say I used the word w***e to describe a prostitute. They mean the same exact thing, yet I would probably get in trouble if I used the former.

Of course those words are not highly regarded but those words are not the only forms of racism. Some racism is subtle and that is the kind that certain members of the anti-PC brigade defend.

Not to mention that there are numerous people out there that take the frankly ridiculous stance that these words are only offensive because people choose to take offense to them.

Like what, for example?

Remember the Dom Imus "nappy headed hoes" controversy?

An irrational fear of offending someone else. What is this called? It needs a name because it's a serious mental disease that's sweeping across our country. All I know is, that if I offend other people in life, they are too scared to say anything directly to my face but instead probably complain about it to someone else behind my back..... So what is that called?

I guess to some extent it depends on what one means by "social consequences", if it means someone who repeatedly publicly says racial slurs and some people might look askance at that or not hang around with that person that seems natural. But if the "social consequences" are if somebody once says something that some people deem "racist" or "homophobic" or otherwise offensive and a bunch of people try to punish the person by going after the person's livelihood - such as what happened with Paula Deen and the Duck Dynasty people and the guy who owned a basketball team, that's going too far and is too vindictive.

Ah yes. Don Imus.

What if an actual comedian had made a joke using that terminology?

This is what worries me: People will continue to make hoopla about terms or phrases they don't like and it's going to have a chilling-effect on free speech.

It would depend on the context in which the comedian made the joke.

This is exactly what I'm talking about: you're using anti PC-rhetoric to defend Imus's racist comments.

This doesn't have anything to do with free speech. Free speech does not protect one against criticism.

So how are you defining "going after someone's livelihood"? Do you think that if a company fired a racist employee, that would be "going after their livelihood"?

I am not defending Imus.

Saying something could have a chilling-effect on free speech isn't rhetoric. Certain acts make people less likely to exercise free-speech. For instance, if everyone is called an anti-semite for speaking out against the Hasidic jews, people will be less and less likely to speak out against them.

People that care for their pets do so already no matter what term is used....those who do not do will not change because of words.

Yes, you are defending Imus. He made a racist comment and you seem to have an issue with people calling him out for it.

The Imus controversy not a free speech issue. Free speech does not protect one against criticism/social consequences. Also, free speech has nothing to do with the likelihood that someone will say something; it has to do with the freedom to say it.

I think this interpretation of Jango's point is a bit too simple. He's saying that the terminology that people use can influence behavior on a macro level. Like I said before, terminology is quite powerful. For example, using terminology to define a group in a certain way can influence the way that people treat said group, etc.

No, I am not. No where in my posts did I mention I was defending him, or even imply that I was.

The fact remains that a rabid focus on political correctness is certainly chilling to free speech. That is the path we are heading down currently.

When I brought up Don Imus, your reaction was to defend him with the whole "what if a comedian said that?" and disingenuously make it a free speech issue.

And also, your second statement is not a fact, but is an opinion. Again, free speech/=/protection from criticism.

It's a legitimate question. The Imus in the Morning program is considered to be fairly satirical, which is why I asked.

It is, unfortunately, a fact. This isn't about having freedom from the consequences of your speech. This is about being able to speak freely without being silenced or belittled because someone doesn't like what you're saying.

No, it is not a fact. Facts are things that can be objectively verified. Thus, your political opinions are not facts.

Making "hoopla" about certain terms/=/silencing. Belittling (tho not all PCness=belittling) someone does not take away their ability to speak freely.

By your logic, one could argue that you make a big deal out of political correctness has an effect on their free speech. Not to mention that you have insulted people because you don't like their opinions on this very forum. Are you threatening their free speech?

Again, free speech/=/protection from criticism. It only guarantees the freedom to speak.

It's not a political opinion. Just because you disagree with it doesn't make it so. Making someone hesitate to exercise their right to free speech is a chilling effect.

It would make them hesitate to use it, however.

I don't get what you're trying to say here.

Again, we're not talking about freedom from criticism.

In our house our two little adorable dogs have their own section, with beds and all the toys/food they could want. They live inside with us and I swear sometimes they think they're a human too.

If it is a fact, then verify it using an external source that employs fact only. If you can't do that, then you are stating an opinion. Nothing more.

Making somebody hesitate to say something, unless it's by force, is not a issue of free speech. In certain contexts, it is helpful if people hesitate to say something. Again: "I should be able to say whatever I want with no consequences" is not a mature ideology. It is a boy's ideology.

What I am saying is that making hoopla about something is not a free speech issue. If it was, then the hoopla you've made about comments you don't like could be seen as an affront to free speech as well.

Yes, you are talking about freedom from criticism. Just because someone makes "hoopla" about a certain term does not mean anyone's free speech is being taken away. Your definition of free speech simply doesn't wash.

@GreySeal9: By going after there livelihood I was referring to attempts to get Duck Dynasty taken off the air, and attempts to force the guy to sell the basketball team and to pressure stores not to sell Paula Deen's products. Another example would be the successful attempt to pressure Brandon Eich into resigning as CEO of mozilla because he had donated to Prop 8.

As far as your question about a company firing a racist employee, It would depend on the situation. If the racism is affecting the employees job, for example say a manager is a white guilter and is mistreating white employees under his charge and giving preferential treatment to minority employees because they are from "a historically disadvantaged group" or a racist cashier called a black customer a the n-word because they got in an argument, then the employee should be disciplined. If it's just a private matter of the employee holding racist beliefs or belonging to a racist group or what not then I don't see why the company should fire him.

Social cons whine about weird things.

The company should fire him because having a racist employee can reflect on the company.

@airshocker: why do you keep mentioning the Hasidic Jews? Do you some quibble with them? I'm not accusing you of doing anything bad, I'm just curious.

@GreySeal9: But why should it? shouldn't the company be able to say "we don't agree with his views but we don't demand that all of our employees agree with all of our views". Racists need jobs too and they have a right to make a living just like anyone else.

And how exactly does one define "racism", isn't it actually debatable whether or not certain people are racist?

I've already verified it. I've seen it and heard it. I don't need an external source to prove it to me.

Making somebody hesitate in exercising their right to free speech doesn't have anything to do with free speech? In what world does that make any sense? We're not talking about thinking about what you say before you give a report to your boss. We're talking about putting unreasonable social restrictions on what you are allowed to say without offending someone which could have the effect of making you hesitate to exercise your right, or choose not to exercise it at all.

It certainly is when it prevents someone from exercising those rights, or puts a onerous social restriction on their speech.

No, I'm not. Criticism is fine. It's when it goes beyond criticism. I haven't defined free speech.

If somebody must be racist, I'm sure there's plenty of racist employers that could give them jobs. But really, as unfair as you think it may be, both people and companies are judged by their associations. There is absolutely no problem with a company protecting their image by letting a racist employee go.

I don't see how the definition of racism is relevant, though there are plenty of definitions out there if you need one. In this particularly instance, we are talking about an employee that most definitely is racist. Yes, it can be debatable whether or not someone is racist, but I don't see the relevance for this particular discussion.

I have a major problem with Hasidic jews. I believe they're oppressive bigots that have no place in our society.

keep it up, O'Reilly

If you want to believe it's a fact, go ahead, but if you're going to try to convince me that it's a fact, you better have a source. What you've heard and seen has little relevance to me.

That somebody may be offended by what you say and might express that offense in harsh terms is not a restriction.

Nobody's free speech is being prevented. They can express unpopular opinions if they so choose. Unless there is actual force or coercion being employed to restrict them from speaking, they are simply reacting to social pressure, which is not a free speech issue no matter how many times you disingenuously try to make it one. Mindblowing to hear someone who purports to have Libertarian-leaning views playing so fast and loose with the concept of free speech.

When I said you've defined free speech, I mean that you've configured it as something that is contingent upon social acceptance.

You say criticism is fine, yet you seem to think that criticism of Don Imus has an effect on free speech. How do you reconcile this?

I just use common sense. For instance, I can understand how a term like "redskin" can be offensive to a native american, so I dont use it. I can understand why African Americans prefer to be called that then colored or black, so I do that.

However, the whole pet owner, womyn, and manhole cover thing is just going to an extreme. In those cases, it's really not someone being offended, it's them looking for any possible reason to be offended.

Although I can understand the logic behind not liking the term pet owner, I think this is a fair post.

maybe turtles understand english and are deeply offended but can't vocalize their feelings.