Daniel Mayer wrote:
Toby Bartels wrote:
This assumes that there's a reason for it to be in the title at all. Why is that? What else could "September 11, 2001 attack" mean? Titles are not required to be maximally complete.
Point taken. I was operating under the assumption that your reasoning was only that 'terrorist' should be blacklisted from the title because it is a "loaded term". 'September 11 Attack' is *at least* used as often as 'September 11 Terrorist Attack' (probably more so). Of course we would have the add '2001' to the title because of ambiguity reasons.
I can easily live with the year in the title.
Since this is a digression, I won't go on about what slander the term "PC" is. Suffice it to say that no social movement called itself that.
Well there is no political action committee whose aim is PC that I am aware of, nor any groups that have exclusively pro-PC meetings. PC is more of a cross-group "movement" to change the English language (using the word "movement" very loosely). Perhaps "trend" would be more accurate (even though there are many counter trends to PC that help to negate its progress).
They exist in some places. Latin American death squads fall in that category. In the United States the Ku Klux Klan had its own PC agenda.
Ec