And That Whole “Jesus” Thing…

Australian Santas-in-training (?) told ho,ho,ho is sexist and derogatory:

Thirty trainees at a Santa course in Adelaide last month, held by recruitment company Westaff, were urged to replace the traditional festive greeting with “ha, ha, ha”.

Thankfully, not everyone is jumping on the sleigh:

A Santa veteran of 11 years who attended the course told the Sunday Mail the trainer was very clear in spelling out no to “ho”.

Two Santa hopefuls reportedly left the course after the trainer’s edict.

The bitch of it the ironic part is that “ho” isn’t even an Australian term, unless you’re gardening:

The term “ho” is also American slang for a prostitute. “We were told it (ho) was a derogatory term for females and can upset people,” said the Santa, who did not want to be identified publicly.

“As far as I’m concerned, a hoe is something you dig the ground with.

“I don’t think you’ll hear too many Santas saying `ha, ha, ha’.”

Tommy Lee Jones, maybe.

Critics have branded the instruction for Santas to use “Ha! ha! ha! Merry Christmas” as nonsense and madness.

University of South Australia communications senior lecturer Dr Jackie Cook said any banning of “ho, ho, ho” was “nonsense”.

“Can we use a garden hoe anymore? Do we have to remove that?” she said.

And if they come for Hoe, pretty soon they’ll come for Whole, Home, Honey…

NOTE TO KARL BREMER AND KEN “AVIDOR” WEINER: Before you run off to Steve Perry and Kos and try to call me “racist”, read here.

25 thoughts on “And That Whole “Jesus” Thing…

  1. Cowardice takes many forms, including the form that whines about someone else being criticized or prevented from doing something it so very much wants to do but is afraid to because of societal stigma – and so meekly goes along. (i.e. gay bashing – which (Mitch pointed out) the right stays away from, but not because of a love of gays, quite the opposite, or because they’re above demeaning and ugly remarks, hardly, but simply because they are afraid of being exposed for homophobes – all the while working incessantly to deny gays equal opportunity under the law).

  2. And if they come for Hoe, pretty soon they’ll come for Whole, Home, Honey…

    the point peev is making is that if you are right about the direction this is taking soon the word homophobe will be off limits and no right thinking leftist will be able to damage the self-esteem of others with its appellation.

  3. Simply off his game? No, he’s completely wrong… and off his rocker, out of his tree, ’round the twist, and gone compeltely loopy.

    No love of gays? Afraid of being exposed as homophobes?

    Peevish-Beevish, you and your folk constantly call anyone right of Stalin a homophobe. Anyone who questions some political or social decision or other from gays (as a political group) is smeered as “anti-gay”.

    That is a great left-leaner tactic if you want to shut down the arguement and make the more timid folks run and hide.

    Ho, ho, ho? Is Australia going to ban the Jolly Green Giant? The people of Le Suere ought to boycot Fosters… although, technically I suspect they probably do.

  4. I think I’ve been reading too much Peevish, lately; I think I kind of get what he’s getting at.

    He’s wrong, but I think I understand what he’s getting at.

    No, Peev, the reason that those on the right who aren’t anti-gay bigots don’t make crude homophobic comments isn’t because their afraid of being exposed as anti-gay bigots, but because they aren’t anti-gay bigots, and don’t wish to be thought of as something disreputable that they’re not.

    Many people — I’m increasingly becoming one — are opposed to the expansion (and, in my case, renewal) of antidiscrimination laws because they’ve seen that, on balance, the good effects that such laws have are outweighed by bad effects, and think that the effect of lawful but nonlegal social sanctions against bigotry can do enough of the good stuff without bringing along all the counterproductive baggage.

  5. Mitch – read Joel’s comments, apparently he’s smarter than you.

    Joel – I agreee with your second point a LOT, and say it to Democrats a LOT – PCism have gone too far, it’s really the bane of the left. Counter discrimination does more harm than any level of protection achieved.

    Yet – I don’t agree righties aren’t scared, I think they are. They resent the hell out of PC’isms, but generally don’t stand up to it, despite despising it. and ya know Joel, my point was actually pretty damned easy to get – and I didn’t insult you personally, was there a reason you needed to insult me?

  6. Peev, I know you think that you write clearly (and, from other postings, you also think that you comprehend well), but you really don’t.

    I know that’s not a nice thing to say, but I do hope you’ll take it as a professional observation, and not a personal insult.

  7. But, in case Peev does need a personal insult, I could always point out he’s a longwinded, socially inept, comment thread hijacking troll.

    But, I’m better than that, so I won’t.

  8. Badda – are you sure someoen who is missing all his marbles (you) should go about point fingers?

    First, I’m a LONG way from your average Democrat, politically. I’m almost as far as I am from Neo-Con Republicans, but not quite.

    Second, I gather that you are a red-baiter – ‘left of Stalin’ – but seriously, you, Mitch, most of his Lilliputians (of which I don’t think of Joel as btw) – you’re slightly to the right of Hitler – so how can you tell how far someone is to the left of you when you are at infinity’s edge – as you are – since ANYTHING is a long way left of you.

    Righties bash gays incessantly, they talk about how they are deviant personalities, that it’s unnatural, that it’s perverted. Yet, I’ve NEVER once seen a righty, not one, stand up and say “yah know, I’m not gonna take it. Look, Gay, Homosexual, Queer, whatever, it’s your life, live it how you like, but I’m not obligated to approve of it.”

    HAD YOU – maybe homosexuality could have been or would have been challenged as a ‘protected class’, which it really hasn’t been fully proclaimed yet. In short, I’ve generally observed an acquiesence – and see objection far more frequently from outside the neo-kook circles, than within it. I know of people who’ve objected, publicly, to ‘personal of color’ or castigating somone who USED the word ‘colored’. Now that doesn’t mean they’re racist, it means, they simply don’t support the idiocy of PC’ism.

    And then there’s the fact that the right has it’s own list of PC’isms anyway:

    1. Death Tax
    2. Intelligent Design (which they changed from Creation Science)
    3. Pro-Victory (rather than simply saying they support keeping troops in Iraq)

    That list is endless. So Mitch is bitching about conduct he doesn’t stand up to, and repeats, just in different circumstances. That’s cowardice on the front end – and hypocrisy on the back end.

    Now here’s the thing Badda, the left is scared of the ramifications of not complying with PCishness too.. and all should be ashamed.

    Say a person is Black, not a Person of Color
    Say a person is a Mailman, or woman, if they insist on Letter Carrier, say ok, have a nice day Mr. Mailman/Maillady – if they get pissed, that’s on them.
    Think of your own silli-PCism here, refuse to use it. Mock it. and start saying to people ‘get over yourself.’ The point is, stand up, people mostly get offended because they WANT to.

  9. I don’t take it personally, and I agree I don’t write clearly enough, frequently, but this is Mitch’s blog, and my foibles are hardly worth the time to discuss them, except that it entertains freaks like Kel, Yoss, and Badda.

    As for comprehending, I comprehend fine. Past that, many things I write are both brief, and entirely clear. This was clear, I was calling Mitch’s conduct cowardly. He bitches about PCisms, yet doesn’t see the hypocrisy on the right – or more importantly, as is always his way – ignores it because it’s not convenient to admit he has the same flaws.

    As far as comprehension goes though Joel – for example – I think you wrote that confronting an armed assailant, while unarmed, was statistically the worst strategy, while confronting one while armed, was the best.

    I quoted you – and Mitch didn’t get that you said exactly that. Did you not say it?

  10. Now I’m a shunned freak. I don’t know how I’ll get through the rest of the week.

    I’ll just have to console myself with the knowledge I’m not Peev, I guess. That usually works.

  11. PB,

    You are wrong again!

    Yet, I’ve NEVER once seen a righty, not one, stand up and say “yah know, I’m not gonna take it. Look, Gay, Homosexual, Queer, whatever, it’s your life, live it how you like, but I’m not obligated to approve of it.”

    I do it constantly in this very blog!

    In addition, I participated in a gay bashing.

    On the side of the gay guy.

  12. Anybody notice what the blog entry was actually about?

    The term “ho” is also American slang for a prostitute. “We were told it (ho) was a derogatory term for females and can upset people,” said the Santa, who did not want to be identified publicly.

    It’s all a simple misunderstanding. In reality, the Santas were simply asked not to say, “Ho, ho, ho, beeatch!”

  13. MB –

    You are wrong again –

    I wasn’t talking about this little corner of rightwing freakdom, this safe little enclave, I was talking about your lack of willingness to stand up to PCisms – in this case rightwing PCisms – your adoption of them wilfully, and frankly, that you talk a good game about PCisms – but go along just fine with not speaking up – whilst (I suppose in your case advocating for candidates who want to disenfranchise homosexuals) engaging in gay bashing.

    Let’s be clear Mitch, stand up to it in YOUR world. Advocate for Civil Unions, not just here, and yeah, I’ve seen it HERE, but go to a caucus, see how that goes for you big fella.

    And your protestations of having gotten into fist fights for gays notwithstanding – I really didn’t say YOU engaged in gay bashing, I said you cowtowed to PCisms (generally) – but focus on the minutae Mitch, it’s what you do best. I pointed out gay bashing as a right wing activity – in the form of forming policy, while they keep their mouths shut in public circles about their real feelings. That didn’t necessarily mean YOU, personally, but heck, fling poo Mitch – I mean it’s not that you haven’t lumped me into big group labels, right?

    Terry, yes, all the time, by the way, are you free later?

  14. in this case rightwing PCisms

    Which are, by the way, not. There’s a big difference between PC and merely trying to control the terms of a discussion.

    Let’s be clear Mitch, stand up to it in YOUR world. Advocate for Civil Unions, not just here, and yeah, I’ve seen it HERE, but go to a caucus, see how that goes for you big fella.

    I wish I could get a buck from you for every one of your assumptions that happens to be completely false.

    I have advocated for civil unions in caucuses and, in case you weren’t paying attention, on my flaming right-wing talk show.

  15. PB-ish,

    ~ “you’re slightly to the right of Hitler”… proof please, considering that he was a NAZI, which has the word Socialism right in there and conservatism is hardly part of fascism.
    ~ “ANYTHING is a long way left of you”… you have plenty of places to look for my posts and comments, but you have no proof of this. You’re not really saying anything. Get back to me when you’ve got an illustrative quote and link. (It’s usually blue text.)
    ~ “Righties bash gays incessantly”… proof please.
    ~ “That list is endless”, the list being PC-isms from the right. Death Tax isn’t PC. Intellegent Design is also a specific term… but it isn’t simply misused by folks on the right… it is constantly misused by folks on the left. Pro-victory is a great phrase that is used against folks who voted for then against the war who also constantly pander to their constituents how they will end the war, but yet don’t. It is a word to get folks (like, perhaps, yourself) worked up into a lather for the purposes of entertainment. Dude, it works like an effing charm! lol
    ~ “freaks like Kel, Yoss, and Badda”… come on, PB. What exactly is freaky about me?
    ~ “many things I write are both brief, and entirely clear”… this is a best a gross exaggeration, or at worst a flat-out, dirty, Communist lie.

  16. “Terry, yes, all the time, by the way, are you free later?”

    You do understand, peev, that my support for civil unions is based on the assumption that both participants enter into the agreement voluntarily?

  17. There must be a root cause to the really really amazingly bizarre tangent thsi topic took:

    prevented from doing something it so very much wants to do but is afraid to because of societal stigma – and so meekly goes along.

    Ah. there it is.

    I have no desire to insult anyone’s gender, orientation or ethnicity.

    Period. Ever.

    That really is all there is to say about it.

  18. “I don’t agree righties aren’t scared, I think they are. They resent the hell out of PC’isms, but generally don’t stand up to it, despite despising it.”

    Let me see if I got this right. Whenever I speak against something PC, I am immediately attacked by the left for being homophobic or racist or some sort of phobic or ist. Which means that I keep my mouth shut. Which means its my fault that people are homophobic and/or racists? Do I have that right?

    You need to get out more. I would guess there is a huge number of South Park Republican’s out there, of which I would be one. When you spend all your time looking for a stereotype, that’s probably all your going to find.

  19. Peevish: “…I said you cowtowed to PCisms…”

    Mitch isn’t a dairy farmer, and if he were he’d put his dairy cattle in the livestock trailer and tow them to the market or slaughterhouse. If you meant to say “kowtowed”, ….

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.