Re: [Callers] Progressive politics? Ha, ha

I am a free speech kind of guy and about as progressive as they come. Political correctness is a loaded term that I avoid at almost all costs. There is no constitutional provision to claim a right to not be offended. Neither should there be one. The world and life are just to complex and complicated for that. Having said that, I'll add that it is wise to remember that it is better to be nice than it is to be not nice; it is better to encourage people to be nice rather than not nice; it is better to create and enhance an environment where people will want to be nice and not be not nice. That's human kindness, thoughtfulness and making the world better, not politics or language manipulation. The discussion has been interesting and, for me, profitable, so I'll leave it with this. I will continue to use the "g" word as necessary while at the same time endeavoring to find good workable (for me and others) alternatives. I will continue to use "allemande" until such time as I may have to change, I prefer it to "turn," which in dancing can have a whole different and therefore confusing meaning. I liked the reference to "gents and ladies" being class-based terms. They are and, as someone who has spoken out upon hearing someone say, "He is a classy person" or "she did that with class" I have thought long and hard about the usage in contra dancing. Still I prefer them to "men and women" which for me is clumsy and on the dance floor sound very similar. While I use active and inactive on my dance cards, I rarely use them when instructing or calling, I find them even clumsier. Lead and follow are also rarely functional. So until I find something better, "Gents and ladies" it is. The terms are indeed class-based, but other words are religion-based, or ethnic-discrimination-based, even ageism-based and sexism-based. Language is kind of that way. And English is confusing and cluttered enough without making more rules. Clarity appears to me to be all important. For that matter, the same thing applies to numbering couples of neighbors #1, 2, 3, etc. They can be problematic and vaguely imply status, but for the moment they're what I've got. If you want to get into it even proper and improper can have issues. In the mean time, I'd rather dance than call -- at least until the body gives out -- so much of this is just theory for me. Lets keep working on it and discussing it as friends Thanks, George Mercer On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 9:51 AM, Aahz Maruch via Callers < callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net&gt; wrote: