Are you Politically Correct?
- Thread starter rah
- Start date
- Status
I like that alot. PoEEStAO for short.
Hamilton321
Prince
I am okay with political correctness when it is done for the right reasons, however there are three things which I do not like about political correctness. One is when political correctness is used to gaslight people who one doesn't like or agree with, another is when people try to make everyone else talk a certain way and accuses them of racism if they do not. These people just use social justice and political correctness to control arguments and feel superior. The other is white male social justice warriors. It really irritates me when other white males want to speak for minorities just so that they can avoid feeling guilty or sad about what their race has done in the past and who gaslight others for not speaking a certain way, these woke individuals more often than not are trying to be leaders of a movement which is not theirs and if they really care that much should step aside and let real minorities be offended rather than being offended for them. I think that it is good when white males try to stand up for minorities, but I think that the ones who do it to show how woke or sensitive they are really are hypocrites and minorities don't need the patronage of white men who don't understand their struggles.
Edit: part of the reason I hate white male social justice warriors is because a few months ago I spent a week with my brother who is a white male social justice warrior and he kept gaslighting me for saying things that weren't even racist and then lecturing me about all the oppression that our ancestors unleashed.
Edit: part of the reason I hate white male social justice warriors is because a few months ago I spent a week with my brother who is a white male social justice warrior and he kept gaslighting me for saying things that weren't even racist and then lecturing me about all the oppression that our ancestors unleashed.
Last edited:
I have openly referred to myself as disabled on numerous occasions on this forum. It's not something I did right away; it took years of gradual building of trust and friendships so I felt comfortable finally posting, "I am a disabled person/I have a disability/etc."
Therefore, it's okay to refer to me as disabled. But I'm not wild about the term "handicapped." I've used the term "mobility-challenged" which is also accurate for me. Of course this does bring up the problem of ignorant jerks who assume that because my body doesn't work correctly, my thinking doesn't work correctly either. I had a goaround with one of these sorts in the Office of the Public Guardian when he was condescendingly trying to tell me that I was unfit to look after my father's affairs. He assumed I didn't understand what "dementia" meant, and informed me, "Basically, your father has lost his marbles."
I informed him that I'm not stupid, I know what dementia is, I know what Alzheimers is (both my dad and I had to deal with that situation with my grandmother ten years previously), and do NOT condescend to me. I further told him he was being unprofessional. Throughout this, my mother was throwing fits of horror, because apparently you're not supposed to put government paper-pushers in their place when they're being insulting and unprofessional.
As for referring to athletes as disabled if they're merely injured and expected to recover and resume playing... that's ludicrous. If they're just injured, call them injured. The only reason to call them disabled is if they have suffered an injury or other medical/psychological condition severe enough that it prevents them from resuming their career. Presumably this would mean that they will have to either take on work they are able to do, or retrain for other work, or maybe their condition prevents them from working, period.
In the mid-'80s one of the people in my physical geography lab group (in college) always wore a button on his jacket that said "Politically correct". I asked him what it meant, and based on what was going on in this region at that time, it would seem that the definition - or at least the connotation - has changed.
Political correctness was uncertain here at that point, because that was around the time of the Jim Keegstra trial. I've mentioned Keegstra a few times over the years; he was a high school social studies teacher who for years fed his students a diet of anti-semitic propaganda designed to convince them that the Holocaust never happened, or at least if it had happened, the Jews would have deserved it. One of the English instructors at the college was obsessed with the idea that of course Keegstra had the right to say all this - because anyone should be able to say anything.
I was briefly part of one of this instructor's classes, but dropped it when I realized just who he was and what he stood for. And then along came that year's spring musical in the theatre company I worked with, and this instructor turned up to play one of the leads in "Gypsy." I was head of the properties crew that year, and my assistant and I were dreading what sort of conversation he would think appropriate when he wasn't up on stage. Apparently so were some other people, and he must have been asked not to mention Keegstra or the trial.
Well, he managed for the first few months of rehearsals, but one very snowy April evening when I was arriving at the backstage entrance at the same time as him, he started spouting bizarre stuff about "Keegstra would blame the Jews for this weather." I told him firmly that I didn't want to hear about Keegstra. He started protesting, "But -" and I repeated I did NOT want to hear about Keegstra. Not. One. Syllable. We were having a late spring that year. Religious bigotry was not required.
He started wearing a pro-Keegstra button on his jacket, but thankfully kept his mouth shut. At least he was in costume most of the time, so the jacket wasn't in everyone's face that much.
Yes, we've had this argument before. Both Mary and I explained why we prefer not to be addressed as though we're male. The courteous thing to do would be to respect that instead of rolling your eyes in prose form and claiming it's something that nobody should have the right to object to. It does NOT denote both genders. Last time I checked, I'm female. I don't want to be addressed as though I'm not.
I hadn't heard that men can no longer say "girls' night out." But proclaiming that it's "stupid" for a woman to not want to be referred to as a girl is... just plain rude.
That's something you have more scope to try to get changed than most of the rest of us do. At least on this forum. Open a thread and go for it.
With some, you have very definitely succeeded. That is not meant as praise.
Apparently criticism is only supposed to work in one direction.
The thing here in Canada is that the Indian/Native/First Nations/Indigenous people keep changing the words for what they want to be called. It's become exhausting to keep up with this, given that some bands are okay with one term but not with another. And then there was the gem that one individual came out with: Non-indigenous people should not have the legal right to use indigenous words.
WTH? That would mean renaming a significant number of place names in Canada, not to mention picking a new name for the country itself. There are plenty of native words that are a normal part of Canadians' vocabulary, and ... (I'd be censored thisfast on CBC.ca for saying any of this)... unless they stop "appropriating" non-Indigenous vocabulary, I will use any indigenous words I please, if they're necessary to communicate what I want to communicate. We're all in this country together, and I am getting sick and tired of the "cultural appropriation" card. And if they want me to use whatever current term we're all supposed to use, they can delete the word "colonizer" from their vocabulary.
(No, the above was not even slightly politically correct. But it felt good to vent.)
Of course it's inappropriate. There is only one "t" in "waitress."
A couple of weeks ago I was watching The Antiques Road Show and heard someone use the term "paintress."
That's the first time I ever heard it and it sounds ridiculous. My grandmother never referred to herself as a "paintress." She was an artist. Women who paint things other than pictures or other art objects are painters.
Zardnaar
Deity
I feel no white guilt at all.
1. My ancestors arrived here well after land confiscations etc happened.
2. I lived in a town that was 95% White, 4% Asian 1% brown. The Chinese were mostly farmers reasonably well off and the few Polynesians were middle class for the most part. I suppose the whites oppressed each other high school was cancer, and the white trash were bigger problems than the 5% or so who were whatever.
Due to public school system rich, poor, black, brown etc you all went to the same school.
I also grew up on welfare once parents divorced, ended up working for the minorities at age 13, buying my own clothes and shoes age 15, kicked out of school age 16.
I'm fairly blunt irl, the few gays I know tend to like me as I treat them the same as anyone else. Only met one trans a few years ago. Had lunch with her but she was a friend of a friend so didn't really get to know her.
I might laugh if you call yourself something pretentious like Zippity Do Da the Third. Just be polite to everyone no one likes a bully and it's a good way to avoid a punch in the face.
1. My ancestors arrived here well after land confiscations etc happened.
2. I lived in a town that was 95% White, 4% Asian 1% brown. The Chinese were mostly farmers reasonably well off and the few Polynesians were middle class for the most part. I suppose the whites oppressed each other high school was cancer, and the white trash were bigger problems than the 5% or so who were whatever.
Due to public school system rich, poor, black, brown etc you all went to the same school.
I also grew up on welfare once parents divorced, ended up working for the minorities at age 13, buying my own clothes and shoes age 15, kicked out of school age 16.
I'm fairly blunt irl, the few gays I know tend to like me as I treat them the same as anyone else. Only met one trans a few years ago. Had lunch with her but she was a friend of a friend so didn't really get to know her.
I might laugh if you call yourself something pretentious like Zippity Do Da the Third. Just be polite to everyone no one likes a bully and it's a good way to avoid a punch in the face.
@Zardnaar
So you decide when other peoples' names are good enough to not mock, and you end your post with an allusion to punching someone if they stop being polite about the fact that you're mocking their name.
Neat.
@Hamilton321
Another good linguistic case here.
Gaslighting isn't telling you that you're wrong on something. It's a lot more complex than that, and is another example of a word with actual meaning being co-opted by mainstream actors and being watered down in the process. Gaslighting involves manipulation, for example, but it isn't just manipulation.
White guilt is a real problem, and white dudes in social justice often have their own problems and hangups. But it sounds like here that you're simply being educated things you don't think are racist, and didn't like it. I can't say more than that though, obviously, it's your story, and your life experience. We naturally resist being told that we're wrong, or being offensive, etc. A lot of conservative punditry is founded on being annoyed that people tell them they can't be racist anymore, "even as a joke". It's not something someone can just say to you and have you believe. You can easily not even be saying something racist - social justice is a very weaponised concept in this day and age.
Feel free to correct me, I made a bunch of assumptions based on your post
So you decide when other peoples' names are good enough to not mock, and you end your post with an allusion to punching someone if they stop being polite about the fact that you're mocking their name.
Neat.
@Hamilton321
Another good linguistic case here.
Gaslighting isn't telling you that you're wrong on something. It's a lot more complex than that, and is another example of a word with actual meaning being co-opted by mainstream actors and being watered down in the process. Gaslighting involves manipulation, for example, but it isn't just manipulation.
White guilt is a real problem, and white dudes in social justice often have their own problems and hangups. But it sounds like here that you're simply being educated things you don't think are racist, and didn't like it. I can't say more than that though, obviously, it's your story, and your life experience. We naturally resist being told that we're wrong, or being offensive, etc. A lot of conservative punditry is founded on being annoyed that people tell them they can't be racist anymore, "even as a joke". It's not something someone can just say to you and have you believe. You can easily not even be saying something racist - social justice is a very weaponised concept in this day and age.
Feel free to correct me, I made a bunch of assumptions based on your post
Zardnaar
Deity
I have openly referred to myself as disabled on numerous occasions on this forum. It's not something I did right away; it took years of gradual building of trust and friendships so I felt comfortable finally posting, "I am a disabled person/I have a disability/etc."
Therefore, it's okay to refer to me as disabled. But I'm not wild about the term "handicapped." I've used the term "mobility-challenged" which is also accurate for me. Of course this does bring up the problem of ignorant jerks who assume that because my body doesn't work correctly, my thinking doesn't work correctly either. I had a goaround with one of these sorts in the Office of the Public Guardian when he was condescendingly trying to tell me that I was unfit to look after my father's affairs. He assumed I didn't understand what "dementia" meant, and informed me, "Basically, your father has lost his marbles."
I informed him that I'm not stupid, I know what dementia is, I know what Alzheimers is (both my dad and I had to deal with that situation with my grandmother ten years previously), and do NOT condescend to me. I further told him he was being unprofessional. Throughout this, my mother was throwing fits of horror, because apparently you're not supposed to put government paper-pushers in their place when they're being insulting and unprofessional.
As for referring to athletes as disabled if they're merely injured and expected to recover and resume playing... that's ludicrous. If they're just injured, call them injured. The only reason to call them disabled is if they have suffered an injury or other medical/psychological condition severe enough that it prevents them from resuming their career. Presumably this would mean that they will have to either take on work they are able to do, or retrain for other work, or maybe their condition prevents them from working, period.
In the mid-'80s one of the people in my physical geography lab group (in college) always wore a button on his jacket that said "Politically correct". I asked him what it meant, and based on what was going on in this region at that time, it would seem that the definition - or at least the connotation - has changed.
Political correctness was uncertain here at that point, because that was around the time of the Jim Keegstra trial. I've mentioned Keegstra a few times over the years; he was a high school social studies teacher who for years fed his students a diet of anti-semitic propaganda designed to convince them that the Holocaust never happened, or at least if it had happened, the Jews would have deserved it. One of the English instructors at the college was obsessed with the idea that of course Keegstra had the right to say all this - because anyone should be able to say anything.
I was briefly part of one of this instructor's classes, but dropped it when I realized just who he was and what he stood for. And then along came that year's spring musical in the theatre company I worked with, and this instructor turned up to play one of the leads in "Gypsy." I was head of the properties crew that year, and my assistant and I were dreading what sort of conversation he would think appropriate when he wasn't up on stage. Apparently so were some other people, and he must have been asked not to mention Keegstra or the trial.
Well, he managed for the first few months of rehearsals, but one very snowy April evening when I was arriving at the backstage entrance at the same time as him, he started spouting bizarre stuff about "Keegstra would blame the Jews for this weather." I told him firmly that I didn't want to hear about Keegstra. He started protesting, "But -" and I repeated I did NOT want to hear about Keegstra. Not. One. Syllable. We were having a late spring that year. Religious bigotry was not required.
He started wearing a pro-Keegstra button on his jacket, but thankfully kept his mouth shut. At least he was in costume most of the time, so the jacket wasn't in everyone's face that much.
Yes, we've had this argument before. Both Mary and I explained why we prefer not to be addressed as though we're male. The courteous thing to do would be to respect that instead of rolling your eyes in prose form and claiming it's something that nobody should have the right to object to. It does NOT denote both genders. Last time I checked, I'm female. I don't want to be addressed as though I'm not.
I hadn't heard that men can no longer say "girls' night out." But proclaiming that it's "stupid" for a woman to not want to be referred to as a girl is... just plain rude.
That's something you have more scope to try to get changed than most of the rest of us do. At least on this forum. Open a thread and go for it.
With some, you have very definitely succeeded. That is not meant as praise.
Apparently criticism is only supposed to work in one direction.
The thing here in Canada is that the Indian/Native/First Nations/Indigenous people keep changing the words for what they want to be called. It's become exhausting to keep up with this, given that some bands are okay with one term but not with another. And then there was the gem that one individual came out with: Non-indigenous people should not have the legal right to use indigenous words.
WTH? That would mean renaming a significant number of place names in Canada, not to mention picking a new name for the country itself. There are plenty of native words that are a normal part of Canadians' vocabulary, and ... (I'd be censored thisfast on CBC.ca for saying any of this)... unless they stop "appropriating" non-Indigenous vocabulary, I will use any indigenous words I please, if they're necessary to communicate what I want to communicate. We're all in this country together, and I am getting sick and tired of the "cultural appropriation" card. And if they want me to use whatever current term we're all supposed to use, they can delete the word "colonizer" from their vocabulary.
(No, the above was not even slightly politically correct. But it felt good to vent.)
Of course it's inappropriate. There is only one "t" in "waitress."
A couple of weeks ago I was watching The Antiques Road Show and heard someone use the term "paintress."
I've called women guys before not intended to be insulting. NZ is very informal though, meet some new they can be your mate in a few days, friend the following week, best friend in a few months.
Context is also important.
I'll also boot people off site for.
1. Being dangerous
2. Beingv abusive
3. Sexual harrasment.
In 4 years 3 people have gone home and I have seen 1 case of sexual harrasment but she didn't want anything done when I approached her about it.
Zardnaar
Deity
@Zardnaar
So you decide when other peoples' names are good enough to not mock, and you end your post with an allusion to punching someone if they stop being polite about the fact that you're mocking their name.
Neat.
@Hamilton321
Another good linguistic case here.
Gaslighting isn't telling you that you're wrong on something. It's a lot more complex than that, and is another example of a word with actual meaning being co-opted by mainstream actors and being watered down in the process. Gaslighting involves manipulation, for example, but it isn't just manipulation.
White guilt is a real problem, and white dudes in social justice often have their own problems and hangups. But it sounds like here that you're simply being educated things you don't think are racist, and didn't like it. I can't say more than that though, obviously, it's your story, and your life experience. We naturally resist being told that we're wrong, or being offensive, etc. A lot of conservative punditry is founded on being annoyed that people tell them they can't be racist anymore, "even as a joke". It's not something someone can just say to you and have you believe. You can easily not even be saying something racist - social justice is a very weaponised concept in this day and age.
Feel free to correct me, I made a bunch of assumptions based on your post
I've never hit anyone for a stupid name. I work in a port and if you say the wrong thing around the stevedores it's not unheard of for a punch to be thrown. Especially if their wives are working with them.
Rough crowd, ex cons, gang members with facial tats etc. And I'm the one (white boy)who gets to go over and ask them to do a better job if they're screwing up.
I've seen some crazy stuff, people getting hit in the face, ice picks coming out, boxes being thrown around, people walking backwards into forklifts etc. People thrown off the wharf.
Ah right, in a particular time and place you're going to get punched by people for saying things that they don't agree with, naturally. I have no experience myself, but know that dockyards in general are pretty rough areas (if the stereotypes about Glasgow - from actual Glaswegians - are any indication). I understand you there, sorry about that.
Zardnaar
Deity
Yes I'm the one that will get hit. Rather large Tongan lads and ex cons/gang members. They do work no one else wants to do.
It's also very multi ethnic. NZ whites, Maori,A Russia, Germans, Ukrainian, Tongans, Samoans etc.
The Uber PC types here make my teeth itch. I blame the university, they have 0 idea how the world works and no experience in the field face so to speak. You turn a blind eye to a lot if things as you might have Holocaust deniers, white/black power and other gang members in a confined space.
It's also very multi ethnic. NZ whites, Maori,A Russia, Germans, Ukrainian, Tongans, Samoans etc.
The Uber PC types here make my teeth itch. I blame the university, they have 0 idea how the world works and no experience in the field face so to speak. You turn a blind eye to a lot if things as you might have Holocaust deniers, white/black power and other gang members in a confined space.
Last edited:
Manfred Belheim
Moaner Lisa
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2009
- Messages
- 8,653
This is a nice little stealth argument. On the face of it it seems logical (and I guess I just triggered yung.carl.jung with that), but what you're actually saying is that the first group of people get a free pass for complaining and moaning over language usage, while the second group of people should keep their mouths shut and go along with the first group's wishes. That would be the opposite of hardening up surely.
@Zardnaar
I think context (as in, real-world context) definitely matters, and sometimes discretion is absolutely the better part of valour. In my limited experience this is mostly an online discussion, for which there are naturally harassment vectors but they don't seem to hit us (white dudes) as badly as they might hit a disadvantaged minority in that particular online space.
@Manfred Belheim
I just see it as applying consistent logic. If you believe in the ideal of "getting thicker skin" or whatever it is, you should use that yourself too, and not get upset at perceived slights from others.
It might surprise you, but for people who don't believe in the thicker skin argument, this is actually applies regardless of being "left" or "right". Where it doesn't apply is when we get to insults around white supremacy or other such hate-filled belief systems, where insulting and mocking is a more nuanced topic, but one I believe is a positive.
I'm a big fan of polite discourse, but I'm also aware it a) doesn't work against, say, a Neo-Nazi, and b) can be weaponised to shut down people who are legitimately angry. You don't seem to see the difference between a legitimate complaint about behaviour, and being called something mean online. One is not the other, and maybe, just maybe, people aren't necessarily complaining about the latter.
I think context (as in, real-world context) definitely matters, and sometimes discretion is absolutely the better part of valour. In my limited experience this is mostly an online discussion, for which there are naturally harassment vectors but they don't seem to hit us (white dudes) as badly as they might hit a disadvantaged minority in that particular online space.
@Manfred Belheim
I just see it as applying consistent logic. If you believe in the ideal of "getting thicker skin" or whatever it is, you should use that yourself too, and not get upset at perceived slights from others.
It might surprise you, but for people who don't believe in the thicker skin argument, this is actually applies regardless of being "left" or "right". Where it doesn't apply is when we get to insults around white supremacy or other such hate-filled belief systems, where insulting and mocking is a more nuanced topic, but one I believe is a positive.
I'm a big fan of polite discourse, but I'm also aware it a) doesn't work against, say, a Neo-Nazi, and b) can be weaponised to shut down people who are legitimately angry. You don't seem to see the difference between a legitimate complaint about behaviour, and being called something mean online. One is not the other, and maybe, just maybe, people aren't necessarily complaining about the latter.
Zardnaar
Deity
It's fairly liberal over here, white privilege as such isn't such a major thing it's more economic/cultural based. The elites as such are white, Chinese and Indian but others tend to join them politically once they become the elite like the Maori party propping up a right wing government.
They've been throwing money at problems for years, the numbers are improving in terms of representation etc and more diverse elite but the bottom 70% or so not doing so well.
Manfred Belheim
Moaner Lisa
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2009
- Messages
- 8,653
That's why I said it's a nice stealth argument. It masquerades as as an appeal for consistency, but what it's actually saying is that the initial group that complains and gets upset about things should be accommodated and not argued with. i.e. they can complain about you, but you shouldn't complain about them (although you can apparently complain about them complaining about them of course).
And it works because Valka replied with "apparently criticism is only supposed to work in one direction", which was a comment seemingly in support of that post that was meant to refer to the attitude of the other side, ironically missing the fact that that's exactly what the post was advocating for.
You seem to think it's a stealth argument because apparently it's not something you're willing to apply consistently. If it were, you wouldn't see the argument made, because even if folks disagreed with you at least you'd be being consistent. But you and other posters are not, because yes, you do get mad about X, Y or Z.
I do too, but I don't tell other posters to suck it up when they're dealing with it in turn. Except for the exceptions I've already mentioned
Manfred Belheim
Moaner Lisa
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2009
- Messages
- 8,653
You seem to think it's a stealth argument because apparently it's not something you're willing to apply consistently. If it were, you wouldn't see the argument made, because even if folks disagreed with you at least you'd be being consistent. But you and other posters are not, because yes, you do get mad about X, Y or Z.
I do too, but I don't tell other posters to suck it up when they're dealing with it in turn. Except for the exceptions I've already mentioned
This post doesn't appear to make any sense, but I clearly spelled out why it's a stealth argument in the post that you quoted. And I wasn't "getting mad" when I did it either.
Akka
Moody old mage.
The point is, these people throwing "bigot" intend the word to be derogatory, and use it to shame others into agreeing. The real definition of the word is not a real concern, it only needs to be something perceived as shameful. In the same vein, they will also use "racist", "fascist" and countless other words ending in "phobia" and "ism/ist" even when they aren't adequate.
That's precisely the part that is annoying, the mentality at the root of PC speech, why I was speaking about "hypocrisy" and why I said :
I like to get factual and dislike when feelings try to dictate facts, so most of political correctness really irks me.
Lexicus
Deity
Here's a 7,000-word essay about why everyone else needs to stop spending so much time and effort getting offended at things
Feelings are inextricably related with factual data, in my opinion. If you divorce something from its context in order to make it less emotive, you risk losing pertinent data.
Back to being called a bigot in a derogatory manner, if warranted, then yes, of course it's derogatory. Sometimes, though, it's calling a spade a spade. Like I was saying to Zardnaar a bit earlier, we don't like being told we're wrong, or being offensive, or whatever. We naturally resist it. It's hard to separate out being called a bigot because you are vs. being called a bigot for no particular reason - if you're the person being called one. It often takes time and introspection to decide if it was accurate, how accurate it was, etc.
I mean, the kicker here is who decides what is and isn't adequate. Arguably, not the people being called it at that specific point in time. This of course can be weaponised, and has been (often by the alt-right and similar crowds, and I'm not denying also within leftist spaces). But that doesn't mean you should oppose the term bigot purely because some people use it too easily, at the wrong people. In doing so, you risk covering for those who are. It's better in my opinion to accept the label and ask yourself why it was used. If it was just an arse looking for a rise, you can dismiss that yourself, to yourself, right?
To bring up my life as an argument, I'm a white dude, a leftist, and someone who has a lot of history moderating Internet forums. Well, enough history. Some people have been doing it for a lot longer, hah. I've been called most names under the sun, including accurate names from back when I was a lot less informed about the world and liked to preach to people about the suffering they were going through. I try to be more supportive nowadays, and I just keep trying. That's life, right? Most people go through that kind of maturation (I'm talking like the age 20 to about 26 / 27, in my case). I like to think everyone does, but I know people offline that prove me wrong
Simply being called a name, especially these days, just bounces off of me. Not everyone can be like me though, because I don't have their life experiences. However, when it comes to being called a bigot, the only time I've been called a bigot is when the actual (not perceived, not name-calling) alt-right crowd came for me a couple of times on social media and told me I was anti-white, etc. If people truly are concerned about hypocrisy, and being called names, and these names aren't actually bugging you because you're worried they might have basis, shrug them off. Being called a bigot isn't the same as being persecuted for being a minority. The stakes are wildly different. You need to be able to separate being called a mean word, from actual harassment or triggering speech. I use "triggering" not as folks online seem to have adopted it ("lol i baited a reaction triggered lol"), but in the clinical, real-world sense because it's actually a word (or phrase) that exists.
It's not hypocrisy, because being called a bigot isn't the same as not respecting someone's pronouns. One is an active lifestyle choice relating to subconscious or conscious bias (racism, sexism, etc) that you can choose to unlearn (if it's an accurate label in the first place, just in case anybody tries the quote out of context game), the other is a part of who you are.
- Status
Similar threads
