User:Latin is for sissies/Political Correctness
Political Correctness is the art of describing things while avoiding using their designated names. For example, in this game, a black person is a pigmentally-differentiated bipedal sentient entity, while a skyscraper is a vertically challenged heap of cement, spoiled fat bastards white people and glue. In this erudite mental sport, which is very popular in the land of western positioned big landmass of douchebags politically correct people, competition is stimulated by adding a periodical expiration for the terms.
For instance, a homossexual person was firstly refered to by the early eminent politically correct thinkers of mankind, as "fags". Later, the term become obsolete, and reformist artists started calling them "homossexuals". Still, modernists insist that these old-schooled artists are too "straightey" and that the correct current term is "sexually disoriented humans". To make things even worse, Post-modernists argue that their counterparts are too much into the school of "offensiveness", and that the correct term is "living entities with different opinions and taste when it comes down to choosing how they want to spend their time with other people living entities, when compared to other apes, who have their own tastes and so on...".
In some countries this game became such a popular mania, that the refusal to participate in the many groups of constant exercising existant is frowned upon, and may result in the offendant being ignored. Most critics agree [1] that this art creates by itself a better world , where everyone is free [2] and equal.
Schools[edit | edit source]
Since the earlier philosophers established this noble art, many schools have been founded, throughout the world.
Generalists[edit | edit source]
Offensivists[edit | edit source]
Minoritiesmists[edit | edit source]
The exponents of this school defend the exclusivity of
Penalties[edit | edit source]
Criticism[edit | edit source]
Many ignorants critics argue that the periodic nature of the artistic rendition may create an endless amount of describing terms, as previous terminology become obsolete, and more terms are used to describe the previous ones. These haters critics postulate that the necessity for even more generic statements will, in the long run, impoverish the language, as only more and more generic terms will survive. However, most reasonable people[3] agree that this is just a very biased and stupid argument.