<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss
version="2.0"
xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss"
xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#"
> <channel><title> Comments on: Bogus is the new Black</title> <atom:link href="http://thelip.robertsharp.co.uk/2004/03/02/bogus-is-the-new-black-2/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><link>https://thelip.robertsharp.co.uk/2004/03/02/bogus-is-the-new-black-2/</link> <description>Diversity and Multiculturalism</description> <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 Jan 2006 02:33:32 +0000</lastBuildDate> <sy:updatePeriod> hourly </sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency> 1 </sy:updateFrequency> <generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=5.8</generator> <item><title> By: Robert Sharp &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Still defending Political Correctness</title><link>https://thelip.robertsharp.co.uk/2004/03/02/bogus-is-the-new-black-2/#comment-18</link><dc:creator><![CDATA[Robert Sharp &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Still defending Political Correctness]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 12 Jan 2006 02:33:32 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelip.sowood.co.uk/?p=41#comment-18</guid><description><![CDATA[[...] First, I don&#8217;t think that refinement of language is the same thing as Orwellian Newspeak. The language that Political Correctness advocates against is still understood, and the concepts they express still exist. I am thinking here of the casual language that actually demeans and therefore harms other people, who we are supposed to be co-existing with in the Polis. For example, I think magazines like Nuts and Zoo are &#8216;un-PC&#8217;. Why? Because I think they endorse a casual objectification of women. That they then delight in this un-PC reputation makes them even more preposterous. Another more subtle example of this is the language surrounding asylum seekers, as Katherine Houreld explained in the LIP. They are often branded as &#8216;illegal&#8217; or &#8216;bogus&#8217; in the press, despite being neither, by definition. They are not illegal immigrants. [...] ]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] First, I don&#8217;t think that refinement of language is the same thing as Orwellian Newspeak. The language that Political Correctness advocates against is still understood, and the concepts they express still exist. I am thinking here of the casual language that actually demeans and therefore harms other people, who we are supposed to be co-existing with in the Polis. For example, I think magazines like Nuts and Zoo are &#8216;un-PC&#8217;. Why? Because I think they endorse a casual objectification of women. That they then delight in this un-PC reputation makes them even more preposterous. Another more subtle example of this is the language surrounding asylum seekers, as Katherine Houreld explained in the LIP. They are often branded as &#8216;illegal&#8217; or &#8216;bogus&#8217; in the press, despite being neither, by definition. They are not illegal immigrants. [&#8230;]</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> </channel> </rss>