The term "PC," when it is not about a computer, is loaded, itself. It suggests "unnecessary" changing of words so as not to offend. So, do we keep using terms that cause offense or pain?

Well, the words, as locked in literature and song of bygone eras may give us insights into how people were seen before we became "enlightened." OR they may suggest ongoing pernicious views of certain people.

A very visible recent example is the removal of "N*****" from Mark Twain's works. Was Twain a racist? I don't think he was. Does it alter the artistic integrity of the work? I think so.

Or, "Gypsy." The people who used to be known as "Gypsies" prefer to be called "Roma," these days. What about "Gypsy Davy" or "The Whistling Gypsy?" And others. BUT...

To persist in using words of hurt is insensitive. And it can be deadly. Words indicate one's thoughts. And words lead to deeds. And even if most Mudcatters probably would not, there are enough unstable people who are more than willing to "take it to the next level."

At what point on the continuum--and it IS a slippery-slope continuum--does "baby killer" become "someone who needs to be killed?" At what point does "blood-sucking Jew" become someone who should be removed from the Earth, in total.

Curiously enough, today is Yom Hashoah. It commemorates the murder of the 6 million. As far as speech goes, Germany has, when I last checked, fairly "restrictive" laws pertaining to hate speech. Maybe that is not the best approach. But is humanity "richer" if we use all manner of offensive, hurtful words?

Saul