Please activate cookies in order to turn autoplay off
This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.
Find out more hereHide
Custom Search
Sort by: Relevance Relevance Date |
Web |
Political correctness really works! Sorry, conservatives, but science just said so
The PC menace may not be real, but snobby liberals are definitely winning the war on the War on Christmas now. We’ll have our quinoa and eat it, too, thank you very much
I was at the monthly gathering of the Top Secret Liberal Journalist Cabal the other day – sipping coffee flavored with the tears of
#Gamergate
supporters as I listened to George Monbiot
outline the strategy for this year’s War on Christmas
– when my phone buzzed with a message. Huge news! According to a new study by researchers at Cornell University, political correctness works. In creativity exercises involving mixed-gender groups, Jack Goncalo and his colleagues found that people instructed to be politically correct generated a greater quantity of novel ideas than those instructed merely to be polite, or given no instructions at all.
Naturally, I yelled the glad tidings from my seat at the back of the auditorium, and jubilation broke out. All these years, we’d been insisting that people stop saying “manhole” and start saying “personal access unit” instead – and so forth – out of nothing but sheer authoritarianism and quinoa-fueled spite. Now we had science on our side! As you can imagine, the remainder of that day’s events passed in a drunken haze, though of course we drank no Guinness,
to avoid offending vegans.
Admittedly, many of the facts in the preceding two paragraphs aren’t real (something that raises serious questions about ethics in journalism) – but the
Cornell study
is. The received wisdom is that “political correctness” refers to something stifling and oppressive, while “true creativity requires a kind of anarchy in which people are permitted to speak their minds, whatever the consequence,” Goncalo was quoted as saying. Yet when groups included men and women, the reverse proved true: in a creativity exercise, which involved coming up with new ideas for a business to occupy an empty building, the PC group did better.
The reason, Cornell’s researchers argue, is that political correctness is a norm that provides clear guidance for how members of the opposite gender ought to relate to each other, which is otherwise ambiguous. “If it is difficult to anticipate exactly what kinds of statements might trigger offense,” the researchers write, “the safest approach may be to withhold all novel ideas.” So by following the PC norm, team members were spared feelings of uncertainty about how to behave, freeing them to comfortably exchange ideas instead. (The effect
was the opposite
in same-gender teams: with less uncertainty to begin with, the PC group produced fewer novel ideas.) As Goncalo notes, you’d expect something similar to happen when race (or some other potential tension point) was at issue.
None of which, by the way, detracts from the truth that political correctness – like the Top Secret Liberal Journalist Cabal – basically doesn’t exist. The War on Christmas is
a Fox News fiction. (Although perhaps we
ought to have one?) Most other instances of “political correctness gone mad” turn out, on inspection, to be false – or alternatively, just the resentful mutterings of people who wish they could still spout racist abuse without other people expressing disapproval. I can find no firm evidence that anyone ever tried to make anyone else call a manhole a “personal access unit”. One representative recent tale, about KFC banning handwipes to avoid offending Muslims, was, at the very worst,
an isolated misunderstanding. A trope popular on the British right holds that “you can’t talk about immigration” these days thanks to PC taboos, which would be troubling except that British right-wing newspapers talk about it incessantly. And on it goes.
The latest twist on the PC menace – the notion that we live in a “culture of offense”, in which people are paralyzed into silence for fear of upsetting the sensitive – may be slightly less imaginary. But only slightly. Much of the time, it seems like this new version of political correctness gets used to argue that while, say, Ayaan Hirsi Ali is free to argue that
Islam is a “cult of death”, people who find that objectionable should
shut their mouths. Mainly, it’s not that there are things you can’t say. It’s that there are things you can’t say without the risk that people who previously lacked a voice
might use their own freedom of speech to object.
In short, then, PC is still not really a thing, in the sense that it’s not a real force causing real bad things to happen in the real world. What the Cornell study demonstrates, though, is that the phrase “political correctness” means something to people – even if that’s partly thanks to the tirades of Sean Hannity and friends – and that, when people attempt to embody what they
think
it means, the effect isn’t necessarily corrosive. All they’re doing is following a social norm
– and norms, by definition, involve feeling pressure not to act in certain ways.
Whether a given norm is too restrictive is up for debate, but there’s little sense in the idea that modern culture is uniquely objectionable simply because there are some things people feel they shouldn’t say, because that’s how norms work. The only alternative to living by norms, to adapt Goncalo’s point, would be total social anarchy – which I’m assuming isn’t a prospect your average conservative PC-fighter would relish.
And it’s increasingly widely recognized that an anarchical approach isn’t much use when it comes to creativity, which
thrives on constraints. “Blue-sky thinking”, with its total lack of limits, provides nothing to push against and nowhere to get a grip; worse, it leaves people more vulnerable to all sorts of psychological phenomena – like groupthink or bigotry or taking certain ideas more seriously
because they’re repeated more frequently
– that get in the way of actual good ideas.
So it’s unsurprising that the participants in the Cornell study’s mixed-gender groups did better when prompted to follow some guidelines on how to interact, instead of floundering with none at all. And, truly, my fellow Guardianistas and I couldn’t have asked for a better
Winterval
present.
Get the best of Comment is free
The most shared comment, analysis and editorial articles delivered every weekday lunchtime.
Sign up for the Comment is free email
SECURITY WARNING: Please treat the URL above as you would your password and do not share it with anyone. See the Facebook Help Center
for more information.
SECURITY WARNING: Please treat the URL above as you would your password and do not share it with anyone. See the Facebook Help Center
for more information.
|
x
Sign up for the Guardian today - UK edition
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.
(Emails are sent every morning)
|
-
Diät schockiert Deutschland
12 Kg pro Monat abnehmen indem Sie diese geheime Regel befolgen.exklusiv lesen >> -
Ab dem 13.11. bei Lidl
Verrückt nach Winter. Tolle Angebote für Spaß im Freien jetzt entdecken!Zu den Angeboten. >> -
Diät schockiert Deutschland
12 Kg pro Monat abnehmen indem Sie diese geheime Regel befolgen.exklusiv lesen >> -
Ab dem 13.11. bei Lidl
Verrückt nach Winter. Tolle Angebote für Spaß im Freien jetzt entdecken!Zu den Angeboten. >>
These comments have been chosen by Guardian staff because they contribute to the debate.
- No comments have been picked yet.
- There are no staff replies yet.
Open for comments. Sign in
or create your Guardian account
to join the discussion.
-
crapkatThis comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
-
chrystophylaxThis comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
-
4 people, 5 commentsPatricianRecommend53Where's the results for groups who were specifically instructed to be dicks? Oh, there aren't any, so that's one major confounding variable missed.Rubbish science is rubbish.Show 2 more replies Last reply: 13 November 2014 4:18pm
-
6 people, 12 commentsPatricianRecommend77Also, clickbait as this article is, the Cornell study misses another glaring point: focus groups are fucking useless, and will only tell you things you already know or should know if you're half way competent.Now I'm off to eat some roasted, battery farmed veal, cooked by a minimum wage zero hour contract worker, who I'm going to call 'luv' when she serves me. Booya!
-
Bjerkley PatricianRecommend15the Cornell study misses another glaring point: focus groups are fucking useless, and will only tell you things you already know or should know if you're half way competent.Would that be a scientific point?And how to explain the variations within the separate groups if they're all useless? -
Patrician BjerkleyRecommend43The study states that output was boosted and more creative. However, It does not qualify how, other than to use quantity of ideas and 'novelty' factor. All this means is that people talked more and made more ludicrous suggestions - 'novelty' is another way of saying 'dumbass' (it's also called blue sky thinking).In reality, by being 'polite' or 'politically correct' these utterly stupid ideas are given air time rather than being quickly shot down as irrelevant and counter productive. If the group is a bit more honest then a lot of chaff is discarded and less time wasted.Been there, done that, have the T-shirt.
-
deadcatclub PatricianRecommend27A bit of politeness and respect for other people ensures that boorish idiots don't always dominate discussions.
-
JohnYardDog deadcatclubRecommend13A bit of politeness and respect for other people ensures that boorish idiots don't always dominate discussions.As evidenced by every BTL thread on CiF.</irony>
-
Patrician deadcatclubRecommend13You're right. This isn't the same as being instructed to be PC or polite though. Also, since there is no test condition for groups instructed to be aggressive and non-PC, we can't say that's the case either.
-
Bjerkley PatricianRecommend14In reality, by being 'polite' or 'politically correct' these utterly stupid ideas are given air time rather than being quickly shot down as irrelevant and counter productive. If the group is a bit more honest then a lot of chaff is discarded and less time wasted.Or alternative, those with the loudest voices and/or the most likely to bully will shout down those ideas that they don't like. Not necessarily bad ones.Something like The Apprentice is a walking study in how that works.
-
Patrician georgeat4So where's the evidence that it does?All this study shows is that groups who were specifically instructed to be polite or PC generated more output in terms of absolute volume, and that those ideas were deemed more novel. It does, not, however analyse the quality of the output.For example, if we were discussing how to reach more customers for pork products, someone might come up with the idea of opening a branch in Saudi Arabia. It's an idea, it's novel, and it's ridiculous.Now it could be - and is more likely - that the groups who were not specifically instructed to be nice or PC had those bullshit filters implicit in their group, so the first time one arose it was quickly shot down and the group changed the parameters of the discussion - come up with ideas which are creative yet feasible.In any event, there is no control aggressive group to state if a more forthright approach would have yielded even better results, and that, coupled with the lack of qualitative assessment of the ideas, makes it poor science.But the author of this piece knows that, and it is not his intention to present this as serious science, which is why he doesn't.
Show 9 more replies Last reply: 13 November 2014 4:27pm -
-
AiremanI found this article so easy to read I had to find something else to do at the same time to stop myself nodding off.Really Guardian! Appealing to the low-brow again!
-
3 people, 3 commentsGeorgeSherbanGood cop, bad cop: liberal, neo-liberal.It's the same fucking thing. They both work for the man.
-
JJRichardson GeorgeSherbanYes, I bet nobody came up with the idea to knock down the building and make a public park.
-
-
Watchman80Recommend31Absolute tripe, start to finish.George Carlin said all there is to say on political correctness:
-
8 people, 9 commentsMaxRockinghamI would prefer Christmas started at the first of December. After all, there is no evidence to sugest the Jesus promoted shopping fests.
-
BalerionZinn MaxRockinghamRecommend11Though he did turn water into wine, so we know he was well up for boozefests.
-
BewilderedMark MaxRockinghamI would prefer Christmas started at the first of December.The lights are already up and the Christmas market has been up for a couple of weeks.I reckon Christmas started on 1st November this year.
-
MickGJ MaxRockingham
Well there's no evidence of any of this bollocks but the Three Wise Men didn't exactly turn up empty handed, thus establishing the tradition of the Christmas gift.After all, there is no evidence to sugest the Jesus promoted shopping fests.
Show 6 more replies Last reply: 13 November 2014 12:48pm -
9 people, 9 commentsGeorgeSherbanRecommend31I always remember the mandatory anti-racism training I received once. A white man in a suit was teaching "us" how to treat "them".He was probably a liberal.
-
MickGJ GeorgeSherbanRecommend19At Islington Council we were taught that "all humour is based on cruelty" which I've since tried to make a maxim rather than an observation.
-
chrystophylax MickGJRecommend11At Islington Council we were taught that "all humour is based on cruelty"
Bearing in mind that that joke Margaret Hodge was the leader of Islington Council during the high tide of its PC madness which went hand-in-hand with neglect of the vulnerable, I'd say you are right. -
deadcatclub GeorgeSherbanWhen I was at school, all my teachers were white. I'm still glad that we regularly got taught why it's wrong to be racist, even though those doing the teaching probably hadn't experienced it themselves. It would have been great if we'd been taught about the wrongness of homophobia too, even if those doing the teaching were not gay themselves, but it was the 80s. Sure, white folk in white majority countries don't have the same perspective as ethnic minorities in those countries, but anti-racism is not rocket science.
-
AnonUK chrystophylaxWas this while Islington Council was trying to be PC about child abusers and molesters? That went well.People without a developed sense of humour are more likely to be cruel than people with one.
Show 6 more replies Last reply: 13 November 2014 1:58pm -
2 people, 2 commentsPrakashShahRecommend19Cornell's next useful study ...How to Incite Fights in Focus Groups and read that across to the general population.Can't wait.
-
BewilderedMark PrakashShahHow to Incite Fights in Focus GroupsInclude Katie Hopkins as a panel member.
-
-
6 people, 8 commentswavypeasandgravyRecommend21Political correctness is a bit of a misnomer, it should just be summarised with the acronym DBAD.All those snorty people blustering "you couldn't make it up" - normally are doing exactly that.
-
Guardian contributor
ManWhoFellToEarth wavypeasandgravyRecommend10Yes, yes, yes. A thousand times this.Don't be a dick. It's really not difficult, and the number of people who seem to have such a hard time getting through life because of 'political correctness' boggles the mind.It's quite simple, it's what your mum and dad taught you - treat people as you'd like to be treated. If you're about to say something, just take a moment and think 'if somebody said this to me, might I be upset by it?' and if the answer is yes, or really anything other than an unequivocal 'no,' maybe don't say the thing. Political correctness is basically just a swishy, 21st century, management-speak name for something we've always had - common courtesy. -
tonkatsu ManWhoFellToEarthRecommend18There's something almost sociopathic about being told 'I'd rather you didn't call me that, we find it a bit offensive' and continuing to do so.Personally when I find out a term, upsets some people I try not to use it - because I don't want to purposefully upset people.Because I'm not a dick.
-
CaptainCheesebones tonkatsuPersonally when I find out a term, upsets some people I try not to use it - because I don't want to purposefully upset people. Because I'm not a dick.But, but… what if they're being 'a dick' by claiming to be upset? What would you do if you suspected they were faking their 'hurt feelings' just to shut down the conversation? And, of course, to demonstrate their greater sensitivity and all-round moral superiority…
-
Bjerkley CaptainCheesebonesStart from the assumption that everyone operates in good faith and work backwards from there.So, if someone repeatedly tries to shut down any avenue of conversation whilst proclaiming their superiority, that assumption might come to slip. Just as those who continue to use or do something that they've been told is harmful and upsetting, particularly if that's the case by many, makes an assumption of good faith vanish.
-
AnonUK BjerkleyStart from the assumption that everyone operates in good faith and work backwards from there.That's the core problem, right there. We know that many, many people don't- and other people only seek to reframe the conversation for their own ends. The total belief in Sapir-Whorf and its use as a weapon against others.I don't, for example, believe that radical feminists, who originated most of the "PC" we know and love today, operate in good faith at all. Nor do radicalised Muslims, nor indeed the EDL. There are a lot of people who are so blinkered that they will seek to close down any debate, long before it finds the truth.
-
Bjerkley AnonUKThat's the core problem, right there. We know that many, many people don't- and other people only seek to reframe the conversation for their own ends. The total belief in Sapir-Whorf and its use as a weapon against others.And how do you work out who is doing that from your first interaction? Based on their view point? Would it then be okay for me to call someone who uses what some consider to be an offensive word a horrific racist just because some people who also use the word are?I don't, for example, believe that radical feminists, who originated most of the "PC" we know and love today, operate in good faith at all. Nor do radicalised Muslims, nor indeed the EDL.And people who object to political correctness too? Those who challenge people they perceive to be racist or sexist or whatever are often pegged as censors, oppressive or even fascists. It's difficult to see how this cannot equally be taken as an attempt to shut down their criticisms, the difference being... where you stand on the issue?This is my point - pegging any particular view point as being held in bad faith from the start is falling into the very trap you complain of.
-
Guardian contributor
ManWhoFellToEarth AnonUKThe total belief in Sapir-Whorf and its use as a weapon against others.
The thing is, the way we use language absolutely does affect the way we think about the world, because language is how we conceptualise things, it's how we interpret the world, how we make sense of stimuli, order and rationalise them - even if we're doing it in our own heads. There have been a lot of interesting studies on this in terms of comparing how speakers of different languages view things - speakers of heavily gendered languages tend to conceptualise more difference between men and women than speakers of languages without grammatical gender, for example, or speakers of languages which differentiate tenses less (e.g. Chinese) are often observed to be better at conceiving of and planning for things happening in the future (there was an interesting study done on this in the context of retirement planning) because the language doesn't instil the sense that this is 'far off' in the way that other languages with strict tenses, etc. So, in that context, it seems almost charmingly naive to suggest that the way we describe things, the way we talk about concepts or people, the words we select to describe and conceptualise the world around us, doesn't have an affect on how we think about them.
I don't, for example, believe that radical feminists, who originated most of the "PC" we know and love today, operate in good faith at all.
Well, the problem here of course is that you're operating under a false premise. Feminists, "radical" or otherwise, weren't the 'originators' of political correctness, come on - the linguistic turn that this greater focus on the language of ideas comes from goes back to Bertrand Russell and Wittgenstein. It absolutely was a focus of the feminist movement in the 1960s, when those ideas started coming to the fore, but it was equally as big a focus of the civil rights movement, disability campaigners, the gay rights movement and plenty of others. Trying to paint it as the creature of some "radical feminist" bogeyman says more about you than it does about 'political correctness,' I think.Bjerkley is entirely correct, we should treat people as we'd like to be treated, and assume people are acting in good faith unless we have reason to suspect that they aren't - and, no, somebody's particular beliefs or flavour of politics is not a good reason to suspect that, prima facie.
Show 5 more replies Last reply: 13 November 2014 3:02pm -
-
4 people, 5 commentsSnowyJohnRecommend50I just had a look at the articles linked and the paper.Key point seems to be that:In two experiments with 582 participants, groups of three were randomly instructed to be “politically correct” or “polite.” Some groups didn’t receive any instructions.All were then asked to spend 10 minutes brainstorming business ideas. Creativity was measured by counting the number of ideas generated and by coding them for novelty.Contrary to the widely held notion that being politically correct has a generally stifling effect, the results showed that a politically correct norm actually boosted the creative output of mixed-sex groups.So, questions:1) Coming up with lots of ideas is a criteria here. Are more ideas better than less ideas, though?
- I don't see how. Feeling free to come up with lots of ideas doesn't necessarily mean you're doing a better job. There's a possible hypothesis that being told to be politically correct meant people felt free to spout lots of mediocre ideas because they thought they wouldn't be corrected...
2) So in terms of judging the quality of the ideas, which were apparently"coded for novelty", what criteria was used?
- Apparently, two coders were asked to assess the videos of groups and rate each idea on a scale of not very novel to very novel. The study cites the fact they often agreed with one another as if that means they're right, but it just leads to more questions for me...3) Why is a novel idea a good idea? The challenge the participants were set was to come up with a good idea for a restaurant. A restaurant which serves only peas is a novel idea for a restaurant. It is not necessarily a good idea for a restaurant.4) What is the criteria for a novel idea? To be truly objective, isn't it just how far from the norm an idea is? Aren't many great novel ideas, though, actually slight variations on existing ideas.Anyway, it sounds a little bit bunkum-ish to me.-
wavypeasandgravy SnowyJohnI wish you posted your second point first, you could've saved me valuable drumstick eating time.
-
trevorgleet SnowyJohnSpot on. Having lots of novel ideas is an imbecilic criterion.Having a group generate loads of off-the-wall whimsy is only a tool. It's effective only if it generates and identifies good ideas (which may or not be new). It's efficient only if it does so with less fuss, noise and busy peoples' time than other methods. Such as just asking the advice of someone with relevant expertise and experience.
Show 2 more replies Last reply: 13 November 2014 1:07pm -
ValuedCustomerRecommend14snobby liberalsActually, Dude "bourgeois liberals" is the preferred nomenclature.
-
arkleyIs it that time of year again when we are told the horrific story of a care home banning Christmas decorations to avoid offending muslims? Or a local authority banning Christmas?
-
3 people, 4 commentsBjerkleyRecommend20Regardless of the merits of the study, I think this part is a really good point by Burkeman:Much of the time, it seems like this new version of political correctness gets used to argue that while, say, Ayaan Hirsi Ali is free to argue that Islam is a “cult of death”, people who find that objectionable should shut their mouths. Mainly, it’s not that there are things you can’t say. It’s that there are things you can’t say without the risk that people who previously lacked a voice might use their own freedom of speech to object.It's like the free speech whinge you often get - free speech isn't the right to say something without someone criticising you for it, which it seems what most complaints really boil down to.
-
MickGJ Bjerkley
It's not like that at all and no-one says that "people who find that objectionable should shut their mouths" as that would indeed be contradictory.it's like the free speech whinge you often get - free speech isn't the right to say something without someone criticising you for it,The "whinges" are are always at actual attempts at censorship, not people objecting to what is being said. -
Bjerkley MickGJThe "whinges" are are always at actual attempts at censorship, not people objecting to what is being said.Always? Strong claim :0But I disagree. There's definitely a strand which sees any form of criticism, including protests or calls for action against a point of view, as anti-free speech, and thus censorship or fascist. The irony of trying to paint people as censors or fascists or anti-free speech for using their free speech to object to something hopefully isn't lost, as it runs along the same lines as those who claim being called a bigot or whatever is censorship, i.e. all bad things we want to avoid.
-
-
12 people, 27 commentsstrangedays2Recommend28Political Correctness = forcing people to say what they do not believe and must not question.
PC is corrosive, it means the sayer knows they are speaking an untruth. It corrupts the sole.
PC is about how the sayer appears, not about what they are saying.
PC words are not to express meaningful things but to distinguish the person from the common herd.
PC makes certain thoughts inexpressible through the 'reform' of language, thus impoverishing language and life.
To deny some truths, in this way, is to lie in a world where lies are acceptable. A person become hypocritical of everything, cunning at continuing the lie (see all politicians) and results in the destitution of the self.
For example, the advocates of 'multiculturalism' do not tolerate multi-views, only the ones that are the same as their own: an example of PC lying.-
deadcatclub strangedays2Recommend29Nah, it's mostly about not being a racist, sexist, homophobic twat.
-
Patrician strangedays2Recommend28PC is corrosive, it means the sayer knows they are speaking an untruth. It corrupts the sole.I know. Someone said that we should be inclusive of diversity yesterday and my shoes fell apart.
-
martillo BalerionZinnWhat a brilliant riposte! In fact, if you read the comment concerned, there are some good points which are worth arguing with, at least.
-
mcon strangedays2PC makes certain thoughts inexpressible through the 'reform' of language, thus impoverishing language and life.
To deny some truths, in this way, is to lie in a world where lies are acceptable.well, I often argue with anti-gay-rights people and when they complain about not being able to say certain things about gays due to political correctness, the things they want to say usually turn out to be debunked lies and nonseense, which they then wish to use as justification to deny me legal rightsso forgive me I have no sympathy for the fact they will be called out on bullshit they wish to use to advance their own political agenda at the expense of mine. -
tonkatsu strangedays2'Truths' like calling me a 'faggot' instead of a 'gay person'?'PC' is only used because you look like a dick fighting a war on 'politeness'.
-
YorkshireCat strangedays2PC is corrosive, it means the sayer knows they are speaking an untruth. It corrupts the sole.Eh? You think that if I don't use offensive and derogatory language about other people that's 'speaking an untruth'?Your head must be a very unpleasant place.
-
strangedays2 tonkatsuI do not see calling a peson a 'faggot' would be a truth, it would be perhaps rude, inconsiderate and show the sayer was thoughtless and insensitive. unless the person was overtly engaging in homosexual acts with the intention of offending.
think about it. -
strangedays2 strangedays2Delighted with the result of this!
Each negative reply takes offence to positions not even mentioned. I discussed entirely in the abstract, yet resentment was perceived where there was none. A bit like banning Christmas in case offence was perceived. In other words, those offended perceived their own, I did not have to
I wonder if this is when Political Correctness is comes from? -
AnonUK tonkatsuNo, that's a red herring. Truth would be about working out how and why homosexuality arises in a species that relies upon heterosexual procreation for evolution; and how the philosophy and politics of the modern gay lobby affects, and is affected by, the whole of society. It isn't about calling people names.
-
strangedays2 mconIn my comment I left what is true the the reader. I believe the consideration of others is personal and not for governments to impose.
When a ban on thought or words are imposed by threat, we have entered a different world. Where what goes on inside you head is next. Imagine what our country would be like, for example, if there was a device that could record them? Could normal life be possible? -
mcon strangedays2Each negative reply takes offence to positions not even mentioned. I discussed entirely in the abstract, yet resentment was perceived where there was none.not really - just using real life examples which I have personal experience of and which have affected people's lives in a negative and material way.@AnonUKTruth would be about working out how and why homosexuality arises in a species that relies upon heterosexual procreation for evolution; and how the philosophy and politics of the modern gay lobby affects, and is affected by, the whole of societywell in that case, the anti-PC view would be that gay rights damages society (though no one ever explains how) and that if gays got there way everyone would be gay and no one would have any children, which is patently absurd
-
strangedays2 AnonUKWhy are people personal preferences of such concern?
All that the political arena can do on that subject is impart fairness outside the mind. The PC 'gay' lobby seems to want to impose acceptance where most people will never no further than tolerance. -See comment on recording people thoughts, What would be the punishment for improper thoughts? how would they be expunged. ECT?
I have always wonder why this lobby wants us to accept them, I have never asked them to accept me. -
Bjerkley AnonUKTruth would be about working out how and why homosexuality arises in a species that relies upon heterosexual procreation for evolution;You realise that there is plenty of ongoing studies into precisely that, with many varying theories on the same?Political correctness hasn't put a stop to any of that.and how the philosophy and politics of the modern gay lobby affects, and is affected by, the whole of societyAh. "gay lobby". So where we're talking truth, is this a matter of "you tell me your truth and I'll tell you mine"?
-
tonkatsu strangedays2But my point is that in actual cases where people are complaining about Political Correctness (rather than the phony 'war on Christmas' tabloid lies) it tends to be about them being annoyed that they can no longer call people offensive names.Give me a not-made-up example of where political correctness tries to conceal the truth, rather than just encourage people to think about politeness and empathy.
-
tonkatsu strangedays2
Since when does the government impose PC?I believe the consideration of others is personal and not for governments to impose.
When a ban on thought or words are imposed by threat, we have entered a different world.Who's trying to ban thought or words? -
tonkatsu strangedays2
Your words betray you.The PC 'gay' lobby seems to want to impose acceptance where most people will never no further than tolerance. -See comment on recording people thoughts, What would be the punishment for improper thoughts? how would they be expunged. ECT?The idea that you can only think in terms of authoritarian mind control, rather than encouraging understanding. Sure I want acceptance (not sure where 'impose' comes from) and I think the fact that a majority of people are very accepting of gay people now (unlike 20-30 years ago) without mind control perhaps shows that the majority of people are, deep down, decent - and when they understand something they no longer have need to fear it.The fact that you interpret empathy, learning and understanding as an army of outsiders come to control your thoughts by force tells us a great deal. -
tonkatsu strangedays2
Don't lament the fact that you never had to ask.I have always wonder why this lobby wants us to accept them, I have never asked them to accept me. -
strangedays2 tonkatsuThe PC are an army of outsiders, Tolerance of deviancy has, I think always been there, but there is money and jobs to be made in the PC industry.
-
alexandernevesky strangedays2I think it is kind of hilarious the number of people who think PC is just politeness. It isn't, remember how the CEO of Mozilla was forced out of his company because he donated $1000 dollars to defeat a bill to allow gay marriage in California. How is that anything but PC ruining peoples lives because they strayed off the acceptable thought reservation.
-
tonkatsu strangedays2Yup - keep repeating this.Or, you know, don't judge others by your own twisted standards.
-
Bjerkley alexanderneveskyHow is that anything but PC ruining peoples lives because they strayed off the acceptable thought reservation.Is that PC? Is PC anything we just disagree with now?Those protests are just an expression of the same freedom of expression that allowed the Mozilla guy to donate money to that campaign.Although ironic you complain about affecting lives given the issue was his attempt to affect the lives of others.
-
mcon alexanderneveskyisn't, remember how the CEO of Mozilla was forced out of his company because he donated $1000 dollars to defeat a bill to allow gay marriage in California.Yes, he had to leave because other people at the company weren't happy that he had tried to remove rights from his colleagues and customers.so you're arguing that no one should ever face any consequences for their actions, which obviously isn't right.
Show 24 more replies Last reply: 13 November 2014 4:10pm -
2 people, 2 commentsfreepolandRecommend12I object to the use of the word 'child'. It is demeaning to those who just happen to be young, and creates a social compartment which restricts opportunity for those under 18 severely. The practical implications are obvious. Many persons aged 7 could run the economy better than G. Osborne, but they are prevented from doing so by our foolish social conventions.
-
MattMatt freepolandIf you allow children of 7 to control your life, well... that might answer several things.
-
-
2 people, 2 commentskodicekI was at the monthly gathering of the Top Secret Liberal Journalist Cabal the other dayNo need to show off...
-
5 people, 7 comments
potnkettleRecommend18I often find that someone who starts a sentence 'I know it's not politically correct to say this, but......' is about to say something sexist or racist.
-
strangedays2 potnkettleRecommend15'I know it's not politically correct to say this, but.. political correctness allows the sayer to say what they otherwise would not say, and say for effect, not because it is true:
For example: "all people are equal" plainly this is is not true. For the sayer this makes them appear a member of the high-minded, even if they do nothing to implement 'equality', something that is utterly impossible. -
mcon strangedays2Recommend10For example: "all people are equal" plainly this is is not true.that is short hand for "all people should be treated equally by the law", but like every "PC gone mad" whingebag you can only ever attack an absurd distortion rather than actual position.
-
gadamson strangedays2Why would it be politically correct to say that everyone was equal? That would be ignoring the huge inequalities in society, which seems to me to be absolutely un-PC
-
strangedays2 gadamsonWell, some people are healthier , wealthier, taller, prettier.
I suppose legs could be shortened and so on. (Kurt Vonnegut: Harrison Bergeron is worth a read on this)
Political Correctness seems to be about appearance of purity: no impure thought , nothing illiberal. This usually imparts as benefaction to the vulnerable. Enabling all to be wealthy and no longer vulnerable does not seem to be an option here, as that leaves no place for the benficators.
Some bending or simplification of facts to make a case.
A ready-audience of victims.
Most important: A ready audience of the like-minded who have the necessary position to provide future recognition. -
gadamson strangedays2I'm sure there are some people who use PC in order to be self-righteous but that doesn't mean that PC is itself about self-righteousness.To me PC seems to be a criticism labelled by people who don't like an intervention in society. Most things deemed to be PC were designed to be inclusive, or to allow the voices of a more-vulnerable group to be heard where it otherwise might have been crowded out, or to reflect changes in society, or to redress historical imbalances etc etc etc. I can't think of any occasions where I've known somebody do something in order to be PC per-se (which, thinking about it, does possibly invalidate this study)
Show 4 more replies Last reply: 13 November 2014 3:13pm -
-
5 people, 5 comments
-
wmffra soapboxjuryMore's to the point, why the picture of the great man with a banner suggesting that he's a right-wing TV host!
-
Idisliketea soapboxjuryTo trick us lefty types into clicking the article. :(But really I presume it's because TDS spend a lot of time covering "The War On Christmas" and all that blustery cockwaggling bullshit that comes out of the media.You can't even allow migrants to drown in the ocean without being called a racist anymore. It's political correctness gone maaad.
Show 2 more replies Last reply: 13 November 2014 3:13pm -
-
MarkBLRRecommend18... the tirades of right-wing TV personalitiesNote to (sub-)editor : If you think Jon Stewart is "right wing" you need to redo your "research" !
The real philosophical question is not whether PC "works" or "is winning", but whether it is a good or a bad thing in general.Hint : PC is never "good" ... -
lastshotAll these years, we’d been insisting that people stop saying “manhole” and start saying “personal access unit” instead
Well that's a start, but there's still a way to go on that one. -
4 people, 6 commentsValeriakoganRecommend11Political correctness is just good manners - don't discriminate against people or make them feel uncomfortable or excluded. I have no idea why so many people feel the need to push against basic decency.
-
ValuedCustomer ValeriakoganQuite.The concept of "good manners" is also an ever-shifting arbitrary collection of rules imposed on the lower orders by the bourgeois.
-
mcon ValuedCustomeran ever-shifting arbitrary collection of rules imposed on the lower orders by the bourgeois.that is "etiquette", designed to mark out and enforce class distinctions and show up outsiders."good manners" should make everyone feel welcomed, whoever they are.
-
NotImpersonating ValuedCustomerExcept that, if you make it difficult for people to be around you, they won't. You'll soon find yourself surrounded with people who either share or endorse your views. I wonder if you think that's a wonderful thing?Will work in authoritarian societies, I guess.
-
ValuedCustomer NotImpersonatingYes. That cuts both ways though.One might almost imagine the ultimate aim was divide-and-rule through the method of promoting infinite suspicion.
Show 3 more replies Last reply: 13 November 2014 12:55pm -
-
5 people, 44 commentsrubikscubeIt's a perfectly valid point that people work better with each other when they're not assholes. All that is really required from political correctness is that we treat each other with some basic dignity and respect.
-
LorddMUCK rubikscubeRecommend11No it's not.If PC is just the same as politeness or courtesy - as some are desperately trying to pretend - why are those who subscribe to PC so chronically lacking in courtesy towards anyone who doesn't fully agree with them?The attempt to equate PC with politeness or courtesy is a failed attempt to rationalize a dysfunctional discourse after the fact. It has no credibility at all because we know that's not how it functions in reality (if it was, there'd be no need for it anyway because politeness already exists, particularly in British culture).The best definition I ever heard of PC was from an ordinary working class woman on a TV program several years ago. She said that "PC was not being allowed to say what is the case". For example, if an ethnic minority are disproportionately involved in a certain kind of crime in a certain area you're encouraged not to talk about it.But who are we trying so hard not to offend? Usually not minorities because more often than not they are eager to discuss real problems that exist.No, it's the advocates of PC themselves - i.e. the largely middles class liberal-left "intelligentsia" or those brainwashed by them - who musn't have their precious worldview challenged by facts - they are the ones who "must not be offended".PC is a typical attempt to stifle freedom of speech and suppress truth - a typical characteristic of oppressive regimes throughout history.
-
mcon LorddMUCKIf PC is just the same as politeness or courtesy - as some are desperately trying to pretend - why are those who subscribe to PC so chronically lacking in courtesy towards anyone who doesn't fully agree with them?It's the difference between judging someone for what they are (ie - you are gay therefore you are a threat to children and must justify any improvment in your legal rights") and juding someone for what they say/do, (like I don't care if you're a man or a woman or black or white, but if you automatically assume I'm a threat to children because I'm gay then I will treat you with the contempt you deserve)complaining that people aren't polite to racists or homophobes is just "why won't you tolerate my intolerance" bleating.
-
Bjerkley LorddMUCKThe best definition I ever heard of PC was from an ordinary working class woman on a TV program several years ago. She said that "PC was not being allowed to say what is the case".I suppose it's a good definition to the extent that it raises the paranoid fears of those who criticise PC.It firstly rests on the idea that those who are anti-PC have some objective truth they hold onto, rather than anything being based on their own subjective prejudices. It also shows up that any criticism of that "truth" is perceived as an attempt to oppress or censor that view, which is a convenient distraction from the often paucity of any rational substance to said "truth". It's smoke and mirrors for those unable to defend their viewpoint.Yes, there are times when it can go too far - like anything, but most criticism of PC views tend to be based on a dislike of being challenged as much as anything else.Usually not minorities because more often than not they are eager to discuss real problems that exist.Depends which ones you mean. As someone interested in gay rights, I get a little bored of having to pretend that the tired old anti-gay myths are somehow an objective truth I must respect, rather than ignorant, irrational prejudice.
-
LorddMUCK BjerkleyIt firstly rests on the idea that those who are anti-PC have some objective truth they hold onto, rather than anything being based on their own subjective prejudices. It also shows up that any criticism of that "truth" is perceived as an attempt to oppress or censor that view, which is a convenient distraction from the often paucity of any rational substance to said "truth". It's smoke and mirrors for those unable to defend their viewpoint.
You know perfectly well that what people who object to PC culture are usually objecting to is not the fact that people disagree with them about the alleged truth of their opinions but the attempted suppression of the expression of their opinions.Ironic of you to refer to "smoke and mirrors" when that's all that your own effort here amounts to.I get a little bored of having to pretend that the tired old anti-gay myths are somehow an objective truth I must respect, rather than ignorant, irrational prejudice.
There you go again. But no-one's asking you to agree with anything or respect it. All that is asked is that you allow people to express their own opinion. The fact that you appear to find that problematic tells you all you need to know about why people are fed up with PC types who seem to want to control other people's thoughts and expressions whilst retaining complete freedom for themselves. -
Bjerkley LorddMUCKYou know perfectly well that what people who object to PC culture are usually objecting to is not the fact that people disagree with them about the alleged truth of their opinions but the attempted suppression of the expression of their opinions.I know nothing of the kind. I absolutely disagree that this is what many of those who object to anti-PCness are criticising.Just look at those complaining about being called a homophobe for being against gay marriage. They've not had their views suppressed. Those views have been aired in national newspapers, aired in Parliament, and continue to be aired. So where's the suppression? That they feel bad about being called homophobic? That's hardly suppression.All that is asked is that you allow people to express their own opinion. The fact that you appear to find that problematicI don't find it problematic. Nor am I calling for opinions to be banned. I find it a false idea that in the main people are finding they are unable to speak or having their ideas shut down. By and large, they are having their views challenged. It's not the same thing.And as it goes, I'm not the one calling others oppressive, fascistic, censors (all terms as arguably as bad as bigot, homophobe, racist) for voicing an opinion. It's just massive hypocrisy.
-
LorddMUCK mconIt's the difference between judging someone for what they are (ie - you are gay therefore you are a threat to children and must justify any improvment in your legal rights") and juding someone for what they say/do, (like I don't care if you're a man or a woman or black or white, but if you automatically assume I'm a threat to children because I'm gay then I will treat you with the contempt you deserve)
Discriminatory action is already covered by the law. PC is about suppressing expression of opinion and possible effects - such as e.g. in Rotherham social services.complaining that people aren't polite to racists or homophobes is just "why won't you tolerate my intolerance" bleating.
Again you're confused: no-one is asking you to agree with views you don't accept, just accept that people have a right to express their own views.But if you want a world in which no-one is allowed to hold or express a view you disagree with then don't be surprised that people regard you as intolerant. -
mcon LorddMUCKBut if you want a world in which no-one is allowed to hold or express a view you disagree with then don't be surprised that people regard you as intolerant.That is straw man bullshit. you don't just want to express your views. You want to express them without them being challenged or criticised.but actually you're right - I don't think some people should hold certain views because those views have caused active harm to people over the years.The "blood libel" story about Jews and the lies in the Protocols of Zion used to be commonly held views about Jews, which led to mass anti-semitism and victimisation of Jews in Europe. I guess you'd defend the right of anyone to continue to spread these liesThe lie that gays are a threat to children has led to gay people being attacked and harrassed and discriminated against. It leads to parents throwing gay teens out of the house as they believe they are a threat to their younger siblings.I don't actually want any of these views to be banned but I will strongly attack anyone who espouses themyou meanwhile are happy to pretend that all opinions are of equal value and none of them harm anyone.
-
LorddMUCK BjerkleyI absolutely disagree that this is what many of those who object to anti-PCness are criticising.
That is exacly what most are objecting to. You apparently have difficulty moving beyond your own subjective prejudices and understanding different perspectives. This is a challenge for you.Just look at those complaining about being called a homophobe for being against gay marriage.
I take it they are complaining because being against gay marriage doesn't logically entail being a homophobe. So they find it offensive. The fact that this needs to be explained to you illustrates my point above: you have a lack of empathy or understanding for other people's perspective.One should try and understand people's point of view instead of simply stereotyping them as homophobes because they don't share one's view on gay marriage.I find it a false idea that in the main people are finding they are unable to speak or having their ideas shut down.
I've given you concrete evidence that this happens in institutions and affects their functioning. You are in denial.And as it goes, I'm not the one calling others oppressive, fascistic, censors (all terms as arguably as bad as bigot, homophobe, racist) for voicing an opinion. It's just massive hypocrisy
But people who disagree with you over say gay marriage are not calling for your opinion to be suppressed nor questioning your right to express it. Nor are they calling you anything else - yet you seem to content to stereotype such people as homophobes and then wonder why they feel oppressed or offended. The double standard here is yours. Those you call homophobes aren't questioning your right to express that view - their questioning your veracity and that's fair enough just as it's fair enough for you to question their veracity. But if you don't want to be regarded as intolerant then perhaps you shouldn't impose categories on people that aren't logically justified. -
LorddMUCK mcon
Absolutely wrong: all views must be allowed to be challenged.That is straw man bullshit. you don't just want to express your views. You want to express them without them being challenged or criticised.I don't think some people should hold certain views because those views have caused active harm to people over the years.
Some views are wrong - but what do you want to do? Use force to try and stop people holding views? It can't be done. You can't kill ideas - except perhaps by killing people and even then they'll survive the individuals concerned.In truth - as J S Mill argued in On Liberty - there is value in false views being expressed. It is necessary in pursuit of truth. Wrong views must be heard and subject to rational argument and debate. Suppression is counter-productive.you meanwhile are happy to pretend that all opinions are of equal value and none of them harm anyone.
Totally wrong and I haven't suggested anything of the kind.Saying that views should be expressed is totally different from saying that they all have the same cognitive value - but if views aren't expressed one cannot assess their value and nor can one correct error through public debate. -
Bjerkley LorddMUCKYou apparently have difficulty moving beyond your own subjective prejudices and understanding different perspectives. This is a challenge for you.Whereas you peg your disagreement with my view or experience as some objective truth I'm failing to grasp. Slightly ironic.The fact that this needs to be explained to you illustrates my point above: you have a lack of empathy or understanding for other people's perspectiveI know why. I understand they find it offensive. But finding it offensive does not mean they're speech or ability to express something is being expressed. Any more than you telling me that I lack empathy, as much as that might hurt my feels.One should try and understand people's point of view instead of simply stereotyping them as homophobes because they don't share one's view on gay marriage.I happen to agree. But, being called a homophobe is not a suppression of their freedom of expression, any more than calling someone a fascist or censor for calling someone a homophobe.Again, the complete inability to distinguish between being criticised and being oppressed.I've given you concrete evidence that this happens in institutions and affects their functioning. You are in denial.You've cited Rotherham, and one other example that is by no means concrete.But people who disagree with you over say gay marriage are not calling for your opinion to be suppressed nor questioning your right to express itWell, it depends where you stand on this. If you find calling someone a homophobe a suppression of free speech, then sorry, yes calling someone a censor or a fascist is doing exactly the same thing too. Both can be offensive terms - the difference only comes from where you stand in relation to the issue.Those you call homophobes aren't questioning your right to express that view - their questioning your veracity and that's fair enough just as it's fair enough for you to question their veracity.Well, that's rather my stance on it, but then I don't believe they're censoring me, any more than I believe I'm censoring someone for calling them a homophobe (which may be entirely accurate). As I said, I'm not the one whining about censorship for having my views challenged.But if you don't want to be regarded as intolerant then perhaps you shouldn't impose categories on people that aren't logically justified.I don't care whether you think I'm intolerant (although anti-PC bingo right there - the real intolerance is not tolerating those who don't tolerate gays, amIright?). My point is that you calling me that isn't suppressing my freedom of speech, any more than me calling someone a homophobe is suppressing theirs.Although fwiw I tend not to call people homophobes as it ends in some tedious discussion about etymology, but I've found those with anti-gay views often prefer that discussion than justifying their opinions.
-
Bjerkley LorddMUCKI take it they are complaining because being against gay marriage doesn't logically entail being a homophobeAnd just a point on that - the only argument that logically isn't built on homophobia is that which is against marriage as an institution per se. All others rest on the idea of the superiority of heterosexual relationships over homosexual ones. I've always been happy to challenge that on a logical basis without calling someone homophobic, but there's no logical opposition to it other than that which I have already referred to.
-
CaptainCheesebones BjerkleyBut, being called a homophobe is not a suppression of their freedom of expression…It is an attempt to suppress their freedom of expression by claiming that their views are beyond the pale. (And calling someone a racist because they want to limit immigration is the same thing.) It is a way of not treating their views seriously or engaging in any actual argument. 'You are homophobic' is not an argument. 'You are racist' is not an argument. 'You are evil, so we don't need to listen to you' is not an argument.And I don't see any equivalent juvenile name-calling coming from the other side.
-
mcon LorddMUCKSaying that views should be expressed is totally different from saying that they all have the same cognitive value - but if views aren't expressed one cannot assess their value and nor can one correct error through public debate.but in many cases the views already have been assessed and corrected through public debate, but are still being espoused because the people espousing them have no wish to be truthful and are lying maliciously to further some other agenda (like anti semitism or homophobia)?if someone was repeatedly lying about you (saying you were a paedophile or had committed fraud at a previous job) and they still carried on after you proved to them it wasn't true, what would you do? patiently explain to everyone that though were entitled to their view, you had a different view, even as you failed to get jobs you applied for and had bricks thrown through your windows?
-
Bjerkley CaptainCheesebonesIt is an attempt to suppress their freedom of expression by claiming that their views are beyond the pale.But how? Not treating someone's views as being serious doesn't suppress them. They just don't respect them. This is my point - criticism, even robust, doesn't suppress freedom of expression. But neither does freedom of expression mean anyone needs to engage with that or take it seriously. That might be considered bad manners, but it's a long way from oppression.And I don't see any equivalent juvenile name-calling coming from the other side.I'd say accusations of fascism, tyranny, censorship fit nicely into that.
-
mcon CaptainCheesebones'You are homophobic' is not an argument."Gays shouldn't get married because I think gay sex is disgusting" isn't an argument either. It is a pure expression of homophobia. How are you supposed to respond to it?Weird that you are trying to defend freedom of speech by banning people from using the word "homophobia".
-
CaptainCheesebones BjerkleyNot treating someone's views as being serious doesn't suppress them.PC name-calling is – as I actually thought I made clear – an attempt to suppress them. By implying that they hold totally socially unacceptable views, like racism or homophobia, and that therefore their arguments are not worth engaging with.I'd say accusations of fascism…I'd say accusations of fascism most often come from people on the left when they suspect the person they're arguing with is slightly more right wing than they are.
-
CaptainCheesebones mconWeird that you are trying to defend freedom of speech by banning people from using the word "homophobia".If you really think that's what I'm doing, I'd suggest you have a bit of a comprehension problem.
-
Bjerkley CaptainCheesebonesPC name-calling is – as I actually thought I made clear – an attempt to suppress them.I know, I disagreed with that point.By implying that they hold totally socially unacceptable views, like racism or homophobia, and that therefore their arguments are not worth engaging with.Freedom of expression does not mean we have an obligation to engage in the expression of the ideas of others. It's totally okay to ignore or mock the opinions of someone else (rude as it might be) without it constituting suppression of speech or expression.As I said, the issue seems to be that people don't want their ideas ignored or criticised or laughed at. That's completely understandable. It's still not a suppression of those ideas.I'd say accusations of fascism most often come from people on the left when they suspect the person they're arguing with is slightly more right wing than they are.This thread would suggest otherwise.
-
Bjerkley CaptainCheesebonesOut of interest, do you ever think it could be appropriate to term someone's comments as homophobic or racist?
-
CaptainCheesebones BjerkleyOut of interest, do you ever think it could be appropriate to term someone's comments as homophobic or racist?Yes, of course. What is your point?
-
Bjerkley CaptainCheesebonesWhat is your point?Just curious at what point it stops being juvenile name calling, an attempt to suppress speech, and becomes a valid use.
-
LorddMUCK BjerkleyWhereas you peg your disagreement with my view or experience as some objective truth I'm failing to grasp
Well that is the nature of honest disagreement old boy.the real intolerance is not tolerating those who don't tolerate gays, amIright?)
The question really is what do you mean by tolerate? No-one asks you to accept views you don't agree with.I think you're overly focussed on the gay marriage issue here when this is really a general discussion about PC. Let's step back from the content for a moment and do some analysis. In every point of view one can distinguish the following elements:1.The person who holds the view.
2.The content of the view - which carries an implicit truth claim.
3.The act of holding the view - and the manner in which the view is related to.
4.The expression of the viewNow one can criticize 2 or 3 without this being an attack on 1 (the person), and one can do it in various ways.In a liberal society I think we would all agree that people are entitled to hold whatever views they like, and equally that they are open to being challenged on these.Within limits they are also entitled to the expression of their views - although this is limited by laws on libel, slander and incitement to violence. Thus people are entitled to think being gay is wrong and other people are entitled to think they are homphobes. And they are entitled to express these views so long as they don't fall foul of the law. To tolerate the holding of those views, including their expression (points 3 and 4), does not mean that one is required to assent to the content of those views as you keep somehow suggesting.So this we can agree on, but none of this really touches on the issue of PC we are discussing because what is objected to is a culture in institutions that prevents views and even facts from being aired. This is what the anti-PC people are objecting to - they're not objecting to your right to disagree with them on a particular issue but the creation of a culture, particularly in institutions, in which certain things cannot be said without fear. -
CaptainCheesebones BjerkleyFreedom of expression does not mean we have an obligation to engage in the expression of the ideas of others.Of course it doesn't and I never said that it did. If you really can't grasp what I'm trying to say here, I'll bow out and leave the floor to you because I think were already going round in circles.
-
mcon CaptainCheesebonesIf you really think that's what I'm doing, I'd suggest you have a bit of a comprehension problem.oh sorry, I meant you're attempting to suppress the use of the word "homophobia" and make accusations of homophobia "socially unacceptable"
-
Bjerkley LorddMUCKWell that is the nature of honest disagreement old boy.I suppose it's only honest disagreement when it's you who disagree? Again, slightly ironic.The question really is what do you mean by tolerate? No-one asks you to accept views you don't agree with.I'd disagree, hence the bleating about being called homophobic. What is that if not upset about homophobic views not being tolerated by the person who calls them that?I think you're overly focussed on the gay marriage issue here when this is really a general discussion about PC.I'm not overly focused on it. Indeed, I don't think I raised it until several other posters did as an example of how PC was causing problems. Which is why I think it's a perfect example of how that claim is incredibly overstated and inaccurate.To tolerate the holding of those views, including their expression (points 3 and 4), does not mean that one is required to assent to the content of those views as you keep somehow suggesting.I've lost you somewhere. Where have I suggested that by tolerating those views it requires the assent of the content? In my view toleration means that you do not want them banned or forbidden to be said. It doesn't mean that they cannot be subject to robust criticism. And whilst you claim few, if anyone, thinks that, I'd suggest otherwise.but none of this really touches on the issue of PC we are discussingI think that's your particular issues you're discussing, but the criticisms of PC go far wider than your particular concerns.This is what the anti-PC people are objecting to - they're not objecting to your right to disagree with them on a particular issue but the creation of a culture, particularly in institutions, in which certain things cannot be said without fear.Fear of what, though?In this thread alone, we have had the claims that you can't criticise immigration, you can't criticise gay marriage, you can't even criticise deviants, without being silenced. What fear do any of these face? Being called homophobic/racist? No worse than being called a fascist for criticising arguments. And worse, it's patently inaccurate than these views are routinely silenced or come with consequences that create fear to prevent people from expressing these ideas.That's not to say that it cannot happen that some attempts not to offend go to far. But I don't think that everyone here, or those who routinely criticise PC, are only focused with failings such as Rotherham etc.And that's borne out by many of the complaints aired in this thread. Hence my responses along those lines.
-
Bjerkley CaptainCheesebonesIf you really can't grasp what I'm trying to say here,I do, I just find it inconsistent.
-
LorddMUCK mconif someone was repeatedly lying about you (saying you were a paedophile or had committed fraud at a previous job) and they still carried on after you proved to them it wasn't true, what would you do? patiently explain to everyone that though were entitled to their view, you had a different view, even as you failed to get jobs you applied for and had bricks thrown through your windows?
There are already laws to deal with these things.If you want more restrictions upon what people are allowed to say why don't you just tell us what they are. -
CaptainCheesebones BjerkleyJust curious at what point it stops being juvenile name calling, an attempt to suppress speech, and becomes a valid use.Honestly? You can't work out the difference for yourself?OK then, try this.Person A says, 'I think that, generally speaking, there has been too much immigration and it has not been good for the country.' I don't think a reasonable response to this would be to shout 'racist!' I think doing that is an example of refusing to engage in the argument and is an attempt to close down the conversation.Person B says, 'I think black people are inferior to us whites in every way, so we shouldn't be allowing any more of them into the country.' I think a reasonable response to this would be 'racist!' because Person B clearly is a racist.Does that help?
-
CaptainCheesebones mconoh sorry, I meant you're attempting to suppress the use of the word "homophobia" and make accusations of homophobia "socially unacceptable"To which I can only reply, if you think that's what I'm doing I'd suggest you have a bit of a comprehension problem.But I accept your apology.
-
mcon LorddMUCKIf you want more restrictions upon what people are allowed to say why don't you just tell us what they are.so if you were personally being libelled as an individual you can use the law to stop it, but if a group is being libelled as a group they can't even use social pressure to stop it.so you support completely free speech only if it doesn't inconvenience/affect you personally. got it.@Captain Cheesebones
.To which I can only reply, if you think that's what I'm doing I'd suggest you have a bit of a comprehension problemit's painfully obvious what you're doing, and now you've been called on it you're flailing around and backpedalling. -
Bjerkley CaptainCheesebonesDoes that help?Not really, since I think most of what you're talking about lies somewhere in the middle of those two points, instead of the black and white arguments presented there. That's the point - there isn't an easily visible line at which it becomes one rather than the other.
-
CaptainCheesebones BjerkleyWhat fear do any of these face? Being called homophobic/racist?Ah, I think I'm starting to get to grips with your thought processes now.Yes, I think people have a real fear of being called homophobic or racist. Because these are very serious charges indeed, which might even lead to the police being called. And mud sticks. And I'm sure those PC-types who casually call, say critics of immigration racist know all this, and choose to use such a serious insult in the hope that it will shut them up.And that is despicable.
-
mcon CaptainCheesebonesbut what normally happens is...Person A says, 'I think that, generally speaking, there has been too much immigration and it has not been good for the country.'Person B says 'but they tend to contribute more to the economy than they take out and certain sectors like the health serivce and agriculture couldn't cope withou tthem, though they do lead to social pressure when there is not enough housing etc in certain areas..."then Person A goes "Waaa! you're so politically correct. Why won't you debate the issues instead of shutting them down with your political correctness! etc etc"
-
Bjerkley CaptainCheesebonesAh, I think I'm starting to get to grips with your thought processes now.Which is what?Yes, I think people have a real fear of being called homophobic or racist. Because these are very serious charges indeed, which might even lead to the police being called.Only if a criminal offence has been committed or suspected of being committed. And it's not a criminal offence to voice an opinion that is racist or homophobic.So, it's a false fear and a fear in my view peddled by those who claim it's a reasonable one, not those who take issue with the statement in the first place.And I'm sure those PC-types who casually call, say critics of immigration racist know all this, and choose to use such a serious insult in the hope that it will shut them up.Or, they might just think the viewpoint in question is racist?I mean, one could easily make the same accusation at you - that you want to shut down any criticism of racist view points by calling those who do despicable and an insult.Accusations of bad faith can apply either way.
-
CaptainCheesebones BjerkleyI mean, one could easily make the same accusation at you - that you want to shut down any criticism of racist view points by calling those who do despicable and an insult.OK, you win. If that silly little caricature is really what you think I've been saying, we've been talking past each other and I've been wasting my time.
-
Bjerkley CaptainCheesebonesOK, you win. If that silly little caricature is really what you think I've been saying, we've been talking past each other and I've been wasting my time.It's not. My point is that it's very easy to make bad faith accusations against someone whose viewpoint doesn't align with your own. It's also easy to misrepresent someone's views or their motivations for doing so.My first response to you elsewhere really gets to that point.
-
LorddMUCK BjerkleyI suppose it's only honest disagreement when it's you who disagree? Again, slightly ironic.
Not at all. I'm sure you have an honest disagreement with those opposed to gay marriage but it doesn't help my belief in your sincerity if you casually throw around accusations of homophobia.hence the bleating about being called homophobic. What is that if not upset about homophobic views not being tolerated by the person who calls them that?
Maybe it's someone who's not homophobic objecting to being called homophobic. Maybe your idea of what's homophobic isn't the same as theirs. Good gief they may even be right and you may be wrong! What a possibility!In my view toleration means that you do not want them banned or forbidden to be said. It doesn't mean that they cannot be subject to robust criticism
Well this is part of your lack of clarity because tolerating as I pointed out doesn't mean that a view isn't subject to critique. I tolerate lots of views that I criticize including yours.And worse, it's patently inaccurate than these views are routinely silenced or come with consequences that create fear to prevent people from expressing these ideas.
It's not because we've seen it happens in institutions such as in Rotherham and Rochdale. We could have a long discusion about the effect of PC in other areas such as education, I'm not the one narrowly focussed here.And the poster above is not inaccurate in saying, for example that the use of the word racism is used as an attempt to shout down discussions on immigration - I've seen this done many times on CiF (people accused of racism without any evidence purely for raising immigration as an issue). Indeed, one could argue that it's precisely because of this mentality over many years that the subject has exploded as an issue in the last few years - which shows that ultimately attempts to suppress opinion don't work anyway. And that goes back to the working class woman I originally quoted and her feeling that PC creates a cultural climate in which people are inhibited from speaking truth - hopefully it is now coming to an end, because people have increasingly had enough of it. -
LorddMUCK Bjerkley
So prove to me that this is the case. Prove that it's logically impossible to be against gay marriage without being a homophobe.the only argument that logically isn't built on homophobia is that which is against marriage as an institution per se. All others rest on the idea of the superiority of heterosexual relationships over homosexual ones. I've always been happy to challenge that on a logical basis without calling someone homophobic, but there's no logical opposition to it other than that which I have already referred to.
-
Bjerkley LorddMUCKI'm sure you have an honest disagreement with those opposed to gay marriage but it doesn't help my belief in your sincerity if you casually throw around accusations of homophobia.I don't, as it happens. I prefer to challenge view points rather than peg them as homophobic (even if I think they are, and even if I have done that at times - I'm not perfect). But I don't think that to do so is suppression of freedom of expression, or even an attempt to.Maybe it's someone who's not homophobic objecting to being called homophobic. Maybe your idea of what's homophobic isn't the same as theirs.I'm sure it isn't! But my point is to get upset that I, or anyone, thinks they're homophobic is because this reaction does indicate they want their views accepted by others and not considered negative.Well this is part of your lack of clarity because tolerating as I pointed out doesn't mean that a view isn't subject to critique. I tolerate lots of views that I criticize including yours.Lack of clarity? That's the point I made myself. Yet, I am called intolerant for criticising the views of others.I'm not the one narrowly focussed here.Well, you are, since I've responded to examples raised by others and not myself, and when I do, you side step them and go back to Rotherham.I've seen this done many times on CiFSure, I've no doubt it happens by some. But I think it's a huge misrepresentation to say that those who favour PC are generally and routinely engaged in this. I could just as equally say that those who call PC supporters fascist, tyrannical, censors are engaged in the same process in order to shut down criticism. The reality will be that some do, some don't. But it's too easy, too lazy, to peg an entire group as subject to group think and shared motivations.And that goes back to the working class woman I originally quoted and her feeling that PC creates a cultural climate in which people are inhibited from speaking truth - hopefully it is now coming to an end, because people have increasingly had enough of it.The popular use of the term PC goes back decades to describe exactly this scenario, and it's not to denote inhibition from speaking the truth, it's because they expect us to treat their opinions as objective truth, rather than a subjective opinion. There's always a kick back to not doing so.Yes, there can be instances where it is taken to extremes, as with anything, but it doesn't mean there's something fundamentally wrong with many of the ideas that are pegged as political correctness.
-
Bjerkley LorddMUCKSo prove to me that this is the case. Prove that it's logically impossible to be against gay marriage without being a homophobe.I didn't say it was impossible. I explicitly gave an example in which it was possible, i.e. to be against marriage as an institution altogether.But all other arguments are, at their heart, based on privileging heterosexual relationships over homosexual ones, on the basis that they believe the former to be preferable or superior, based on a dislike of the latter. Which makes it homophobic.I wouldn't call someone a homophobe for not supporting gay marriage, but the basis of their objection rests on that basis.
Show 41 more replies Last reply: 13 November 2014 5:13pm -
-
3 people, 6 commentskodicekIn short, then, PC is still not really a thing, in the sense that it’s not a real force causing real bad things to happen in the real world.D GSCETeacher's note: Even if that were true, I wouldn't believe it any more!.Show 3 more replies Last reply: 13 November 2014 4:52pm
-
luveuropeThis comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
-
harlequinmodI don't have a problem with political correctness per se, it's just I can't keep up with what is and what is not PC.
-
4 people, 10 commentsMichaelBulley
Shouldn't there be a "to" on the end of that?It’s that there are things you can’t say without the risk that people who previously lacked a voice might use their own freedom of speech to object.-
MichaelBulley martilloYou mean you can say "I object the proposal" rather than "I object to the proposal"? Surely not!
-
martillo MichaelBulleyNo, I mean that you can say "I object to the proposal" or "If this is the proposal I am going to object."
-
MichaelBulley martilloI'ver looked at the sentence again and I think your interpretation is valid. It's just a badly organised sentence and you're expecting that the "things you can't say" are what people might use their freedom to object to. As often, the author could have spent a little more time to organize it better, and certainly more simply.
Show 7 more replies Last reply: 13 November 2014 4:10pm -
4 people, 4 commentsThrasymachus003Recommend23>In short, then, PC is still not really a thing, in the sense that it’s not a real force causing real bad things to happen in the real world.Except for that whole Rotherham thing.
-
Watchman80 Thrasymachus003Recommend19Hush now - this is Guardian-land.There never is or was a place called "Rotherham". If you really insist that you have heard of it, it is just some dim memory you have of another land back behind your wardrobe...
-
mcon Watchman80Guardian Land - where we don't take police force's/institutions' self-serving excuses at face value.
-
-
4 people, 5 comments
MarkBLRRecommend21I missed this on first reading :In short, then, PC is still not really a thing, in the sense that it’s not a real force causing real bad things to happen in the real world.Tell that to 1400 children in Rotherham.
-
NotImpersonating MarkBLRRecommend11Rotherham was not being PC - that sounds like a "dog ate my homework" kind of rationalisation for a massive and criminally negligent behaviour. I mean, are they being politically correct when they endorse trafficking and abuse of minor children? That's so un-PC on so many issue, one loses count.
-
kodicek NotImpersonatingBut it does suffer from much less and active coverage compared to articles and issues of 'less importance,' which, due to current tastes,
are easier to understand, more fashionable to get involved with, require little free-thinking, and end in at least one firing from ITV.
Show 2 more replies Last reply: 13 November 2014 1:36pm -
6 people, 9 commentsColinRaspberryRecommend17Fear of that one little phrase has done more harm to our country than Hitler's bombs or the EU laws on bendy bananas. It makes cowards of even the strongest men, empowers mobs and justifies witch hunts. It's past time to be as brave as our ancestors were at Agincourt, Waterloo and Dunkirk, face down political correctness and speak our minds, whatever the consequences.Our wonderful English language have been under sustained attack since the Labour Government decreed that the indigenous natives of these isles were the enemy.First they decided that we as a peoples would no longer officially exist on the census and state data, and were to be replaced by the word 'European'.Next they rewrote the history books expunging any reference to Florence Nightingale, and replaced her with the fictional figure of 'Mary Seacole' who if she did indeed exist, did so only for the convenience non-Russell Group universitiesThen all the 'right on' councils decided that Christmas was not 'inclusive' enough, so introduced the concept of Winterval so as not to upset you-know-who. And of course we've all read about the police visiting homes with social workers threatening families who have the temerity to display the flag of St George.This is our modern England.I watched Come Dine With Me the other night. Fun show about cooking. There was one chap wearing a shirt emblazoned with a Union Jack who said he wore it because he loved Britain. A flamboyantly dressed gay man sat next to him, turned and asked if he was racist!That's what it's like in Britain today. Is it any wonder people are turning to UKIP?
-
NotImpersonating ColinRaspberryEven if all of that is true, it couldn't have happened without the consent or approval of your native inhabitants. So, what's your problem, really, if that's what the people want?Most people, anywhere in the world, feel good when they are nice to others. Some will do it pointedly, in a way of driving home the point. And then, there are the sociopaths.
-
timethatthetalewere ColinRaspberrywho if she did indeed exist, did so only for the convenience non-Russell Group universities.lol! :)
Don't think I can quite gauge your level of satire / sincerity. Nevertheless an amusing rant.Well done for not including "quinoa". Quinoa is neither PC nor non PC. It's just some food and I've no idea why it is being referenced in the article. -
strangedays2 NotImpersonatingThere was no consent, multiculturalism was never voted for in Parliament. it was imposed on pain of the race card: speak out = you are a racist.
PC is completely different from manners. PC makes dissent unsayable by removing from the language words that enable logical argument:
Object to mass immigration : you are racist. ("That bigoted woman", and so on).
Manners, politeness under attack from PC as PC direct exactly what response must be, the very words, eg: "Winterval, in case of offence to those who are perceived to be looking for it. -
Bjerkley strangedays2Object to mass immigration :And yet everywhere there are people objecting to mass immigration. We have our government talking about pulling out of Europe as a result of it, we have the right wing press permanently criticising it, and another political party on the rise as a result.It's a huge, huge myth that people cannot criticise mass immigration (or indeed all immigration). If they get their feelings hurt because some people call them racist, then that's just the downside of free speech, but it doesn't prevent them from speaking.
-
strangedays2 Bjerkley"'That bigoted woman" shows just how the elites think of people who do not share their multiculturalism.
Opposition to immigration has not been permitted in Parliament. There has been no vote.
Until recently , all blog comments criticising multiculturalism were banned from the Guardian blogs,
Political Correctness is minutely followed by those who plan to retire from public life with ennoblement's. The country could collapses, financially as well as socially, still, nothing will divert them from being seen as pure. The suffering others may have to endure is of no importance to them. This is Political Correctness in action. -
Bjerkley strangedays2"'That bigoted woman" shows just how the elites think of people who do not share their multiculturalism."The elites?" There's no global hivemind of political correctness. Many no doubt share her view.And she got called a bigot - so what? Views such as hers are still shared widely, and of course the follow up to that story was the negative reaction Brown got for saying it.Until recently , all blog comments criticising multiculturalism were banned from the Guardian blogs,No they weren't.This is Political Correctness in action.It's nonsensical conspiracy theories more like.
-
HilaryAJ ColinRaspberryFirst they decided that we as a peoples would no longer officially exist on the census and state data, and were to be replaced by the word 'European'.When was that? The 2011 census had 4 'White' categories. None of them where 'European'English / Welsh / Scottish / Northern Irish / British
Irish
Gypsy or Irish Traveller
Any Other White background
Show 6 more replies Last reply: 13 November 2014 3:58pm -
-
5 people, 8 commentsAlleagraRecommend12It's political correctness that permits Tim Cook to say“I’m proud to be gay, and I consider being gay among the greatest gifts God has given me.”but ensures outrage should the CEO of a major company write“I’m proud to be straight, and I consider being straight among the greatest gifts God has given me.”
-
strangedays2 AlleagraPolitical Correctness permits the saying of an untruth, as your example shows, the results become become absurd. saying untruths for their effect: it shows they sayer belongs , or desires to belong to a set who consider their thoughts to be superior.
Absurdities like the removal of free speech, free movement, employment choice to ensure 'freedom' can be seen by anybody who cares to think. Thinking is the target of Political Correctness which attempts to divest the language of the words required to describe the word as it really is. -
mcon Alleagraor maybe its the fact that gay people face different challenges in life to straight people that they think might contribute to their personanilities and life experienceshas any straight CEO has said that or generated outrage? or are you are making stuff upis that a vital part of being anti-PC? making stuff up all the time?
-
mcon strangedays2Political Correctness permits the saying of an untruth, as your example showsso you're saying Tim Cook was lying about his own subjective experiences?you are either telepathic or another proud member of the "anti-PC making stuff up" brigade.
-
strangedays2 mconThe Political Correct term : challenges.
A neutral term that does not say it is right or wrong, omitting judgement.
In the past, before PC, the British tolerated difference, and was known for its eccentricities which were part of daily life, that something was different did not require official intervention unless embarrassingly blatant.
Deviants need some guidance on how to behave amongst a majority who do not share their preferences. Instead we have directions dictated from the PC elites on how we are to accept them, something previously done according to individuals personal preferences, now imposed by law on pain of imprisonment, you tell me if this is progress? -
Bjerkley strangedays2you tell me if this is progress?Yes.Although it won't get you locked up, much to the disappointment of the paranoid martyrs who insist "YOU CAN'T SAY ANYTHING ANY MORE!"
-
mcon strangedays2In the past, before PC, the British tolerated difference, and was known for its eccentricities which were part of daily life, that something was different did not require official intervention unless embarrassingly blatant.yes, they tolerated gay people by putting them in prison and discriminating against them in a number of ways. wow. amazingDeviants need some guidance on how to behave amongst a majority who do not share their preferencesyes, that is why "PC" encourages people with irrational bigotries to try and keep quiet about them so as not to offend the majority who do not share their pathological problems.oh wait! you were talking about gay people!so basically you are stuck in the political correctness of the 1950s and are annoyed that the world has moved on without you.now imposed by law on pain of imprisonmentno one is imprisoned for not "accepting" gays. Are you actually a pathalogical liar? I mean, I already made fun of you for making stuff up on this thread.
-
deadcatclub strangedays2In the past, before PC, the British tolerated differenceNo. Before PC, it was considered by many to be unobjectionable to be blatantly racist, sexist and homophobic on prime time television and in daily life. People tolerate different cultures a lot more nowadays then they did in the mid twentieth century.
Show 5 more replies Last reply: 13 November 2014 1:50pm -
-
NotImpersonatingI think it does too. Thanks for proving my instinct right. I admit, in my field of engineering it took me some time getting used to saying "plug" and "receptacle" rather than "male" and "female" connectors.
-
georgesdelatourWe should treat the results of the Cornell study with caution. Social Psychology has the worst publication bias of any discipline; follow up studies which fail to reproduce the original result tend to get buried.Diederik Stapel was able to get away with decades of academic fraud because his results tended to confirm the prior beliefs of other social scientists.
-
strangedays2When other cultures were trucked into the country, the first casualty was freedom of speech, all sorts of things that were sayable become illegal. It became Politically Correct to make up all sorts of reasons for silence so that the incomming are not offended. Strange that this was done by liberals, usually the upholders of free speech.
This means that all people must pause before every utterance, not say what they are thinking: that these incoming are very different from us, their actions are unacceptable to our culture, our country.
You see examples later on when the sheer level of illegality* is such that the authorities can no longer turn a blind eye. This is one example of Political Correctness.
Eventually the evidence mounts up and cannot be ignored, and the Politically Correct claim "Lessons are being learned" as though their inaction was somehow justifiable at the time.
* See the front page of the Guardian every day. -
CaptainCheesebonesRecommend11Much of the time, it seems like this new version of political correctness gets used to argue that while, say, Ayaan Hirsi Ali is free to argue that Islam is a “cult of death”…She certainly should be free to argue that. Shouldn't she?…people who find that objectionable should shut their mouths.Who says that? The problem is that quite a large number of those who find her views 'objectionable' tend to want her dead, either threatening her directly or openly wishing someone else would murder her. That's what the critics of her critics tend to object to.
-
PVG2012According to a new study by researchers at Cornell University, political correctness worksNew research suggests political correctness may actually aid the creativity of mixed-sex work teams...Cornell University investigators discovered that although the concept of political correctness is often met with ridicule and suspicion, the practice appears to have benefit.If your aim is to be more creative, the study tells us PC works. PC then benefits those companies who wish to be more creative.If your aim is to keep the sexes apart then who gives a frack if the group are more creative? You should define your aim before stating the success of the project.If my aim is to treat more patients, I can deregulate being a doctor. More people will be treated but more people would die. In society, one's aim may be to reduce the divorce rate.Did the study bother to look at the social interaction between the mixed sex groups rather than the creative output? -
Compendium47I always thought `Political Correctness` continues to be used by Labour... for social control, mental manipulation, deceit, fraudulent agenda, `corrupt and abuse` of `public funds`obsessive control, bland and banal meaningless statements?
-
5 people, 10 commentswill620243I have no issue with PC. It makes sense to live in a world where people are nice to each other and where insulting labels aren't used to identify whole groups of people.1. The problem I do have, sometimes, is that the most the most pious followers of PC are often willing to overlook behaviours of some individuals in the name of being PC.2.These same, most vocal proponents of PC are also ready (eager?) to label (racist, right wing, bigot) people for daring to disagree with them on even the slightest point.3. PC is never applied equally. To the most keen adherents to PC it is usually fine to say what the hell you like about one group but not another.The problem isn't PC itself. It's the kind of people who talk about it the most that are the problem. That is why it manages to have a bad name yet most people follow the basics of it.
-
itsamadmadworld will620243Your post makes little sense. You say you have no issue with PC then go on to list some of the issues with it.The problem is that you are confusing politeness, which you quite rightly have no problem with and political correctness which is an oppressive form of censorship.
-
Bjerkley itsamadmadworldpolitical correctness which is an oppressive form of censorship.How, exactly?
-
will620243 itsamadmadworldThere's a difference, I have no issue with PC its original form. It's about not calling black people the N-word. It's about not using certain words about Asian people. This could also be called politeness. It's an American term originally and referred to, for instance, using Native American instead of Indian.Again, the problem I have is when PC is extended to cover some of the left's agony problems. It isn't PC to assume that every black man who dies in police custody must have been innocent but the left do this in the name of PC. It isn't PC to assume that investigating hardline Islamic infiltration in some schools is wrong but again the left have a problem with it because they have bundled 'never criticise a person who isn't white/straight/male' with 'treat everyone equally and refer to them in a civilised way'.The problems that do exist with PC are due to the kind of people who talk about it the most. The original idea was fairly sound.
-
mcon will620243It isn't PC to assume that every black man who dies in police custody must have been innocent but the left do this in the name of PC.you aren't supposed to kill people in police cells even if they are guilty of murderhope that helps
-
will620243 will620243In fairness, I've generalised about the left there. I'm referring to a particular kind.
-
will620243 mconyou aren't supposed to kill people in police cells even if they are guilty of murder
hope that helpsTrue.What I should have said was that it's wrong to assume every black person who dies in police custody died as the result of police wrongdoing. -
LorddMUCK Bjerkley
By either suppressing truth (and closing down discussion) or preventing people from acting on it in an effective way. I gave you the example of Rotherham below. Here is another one:political correctness which is an oppressive form of censorship.
How, exactly?
Nearly half of all victims of racially motivated murders in the last decade have been white, according to official figures released by the Home Office.The data, released under Freedom of Information legislation, shows that between 1995 and 2004 there have been 58 murders where the police consider a racial element played a key part. Out of these, 24 have been where the murder victim was white.The disclosure will add to the intense debate over multiculturalism in British society. The figures also overturn the assumption that almost all racial murders are committed against ethnic minority victims.Senior police officers have admitted that 'political correctness' and the fear of discussing the issue have meant that race crime against white people goes under-reported. One chief constable has claimed that white, working-class men are more alienated than the Muslim community.Peter Fahy, the Chief Constable of Cheshire and a spokesman on race issues for the Association of Chief Police Officers, said it was a fact that it was harder to get the media interested where murder victims were young white men.'The political correctness and reluctance to discuss these things absolutely does play a factor', he said. 'A lot of police officers and other professions feel almost the best thing to do is try and avoid it for fear of being criticised. We probably have all got ourselves into a bit of state about this.'The difficulty in the police service is that the whole thing is being closed down because we are all afraid of discussing any of it in case we say the wrong thing - and that is not healthy.'
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/oct/22/ukcrime.race - my emphasis -
Bjerkley LorddMUCK
.By either suppressing truth (and closing down discussion) or preventing people from acting on it in an effective wayBut you've linked to a news article, from a liberal paper, which covers the "truth" that is apparently forbidden to discuss.And of course, it's a "truth" that one can easily question. It's an assertion by a police officer that isn't substantiated by any suppoorting evidence. The number of white victims of racially motivated crimes isn't such evidence, since his only claim is that it's "harder to get the media interested". Than in what? Black victims? White women? He doesn't say, and importantly, it appears this is his subjective impression. Nor does he say whether this has hindered the process of the police.There's also the arguments that there might be more white victims of racially motivated attacks if one measures it by where a, predominantly white police force are looking for instances of racial motivation. Again, it's questionable whether this can be taken of objective evidence of the issue. -
LorddMUCK Bjerkleyit appears this is his subjective impression. Nor does he say whether this has hindered the process of the police.
He's a spokesperson on race issues and he indicates very clearly that PC is a problem for his members on this issue.But congratulations for trying so very hard to ignore what he has to say - I'm sure that deserves a PC medal of some kind!
Show 7 more replies Last reply: 13 November 2014 5:15pm -
-
2 people, 2 commentsOmikronIn short, then, PC is still not really a thing, in the sense that it’s not a real force causing real bad things to happen in the real world.
-
itsamadmadworld OmikronTo be fair that might not have been political correctness just a desire to get re-elected, no doubt so he could claim some more expenses.
-
-
Compendium47What Miliband wants... according to his statements on SKY TV today is.... a European collective superstate...which is designed to centrally controlled and managed at lower levels by`bland and brain dead `leaders` who are all programmed to think the same?
-
2 people, 3 comments
-
itsamadmadworld tonkatsuNo you didn't. The word for politeness is politeness. Political correctness is not the same thing.Indeed the 'experiment' (I use the term loosely) had three types of groups, those asked to be politically correct, those asked to be polite and those given no instructions.
-
tonkatsu itsamadmadworldSo what's the difference?Because I've never come across an example of not-made-up political correctness that 'politeness' doesn't completely cover.
-
-
3 people, 4 comments
strangedays2PC is saying an untruth for effect, to show the sayer is or wants to be part of a set considered higher-minded. . It corrupts the very sole of the sayer and the listener, who feels something is wrong but lacks the courage to speak out.
Yous should have issue with anything that raised doubts in your mind, that you pause to question over the fear that you will not have approval from those who you or they consider themselves your betters.-
timethatthetalewere strangedays2It corrupts the very sole of the sayer and the listener,Is that as in the fish or the bottom of your shoe?I know what you're saying, it's just that you've already posted this comment with corrupt "soles".
-
timethatthetalewere GreenWyvernI admitted that I did understand; (from context) what he actually meant. - Soul.Perhaps he or she will find the correction helpful.
-
-
4 people, 7 commentsjudgedeathRecommend11Really dismayed by some of the posts here. Political correctness is an absolute tyranny. It has meant that normal people have not been allowed to say the very obvious issues they encounter as they would frequently get a ''thats a little bit racist' response. Maybe going on about Rotherham is boring but it needs to be emphasised as even the convicted fraud ex Labour MP Denis McShane talked about not rocking the multi-cultural boat. The past few months has seen this nonsense lift a little bit and we are hearing about the very real concerns of the public when it comes to these issues that somehow offend the PC bigots. And those concerns are very grave indeed.
-
Bjerkley judgedeathIt has meant that normal people have not been allowed to say the very obvious issues they encounter as they would frequently get a ''thats a little bit racist' responseHow have they not been allowed to say it? Where is this wonderful world in which people are too frightened to be racist, sexist, or homophobic?There are problems with Rotherham due to some of the perceived cultural sensitivites, but it was hardly as if "normal people" (whoever they might be) were constantly calling for action only to be ignored. Indeed, one of those who actually did call for something to be done was Julie Bindel - hardly the anti-PC normal person of myth.
-
YorkshireCat judgedeathPolitical correctness is an absolute tyrannyGet a grip! Nobody (pace Stewart Lee's cab driver!) gets hauled out of bed at 5am and dragged off to a camp for being a bit of an ignorant sod.
-
mcon YorkshireCatthe main thing I am getting from this thread is that some people feel boiling and visceral resentment at being criticised in any way.
-
judgedeath YorkshireCatIt absolutely is a tyranny when you cant state the very wrong things you see in society and if you do so you are outcast from society. Think about freedom and liberty and what it really entails.
Show 4 more replies Last reply: 13 November 2014 2:08pm -
-
WarwickCThe reason, Cornell’s researchers argue, is that political correctness is a norm that provides clear guidanceThat's not a vindication of political correctness as a uniquely powerful driver of creativity. It's a vindication of having group norms.At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law, the Nazis' Wannsee Conference produced a huge range of enormously (and unpleasantly) creative ways of defining and dealing with what they saw as the 'Jewish Problem.'Ditto the Russian and Chinese frenzy of creating Twelve Year Plans and the like.If everyone in the room shares the same basic ground-rules, they can get on with the business in hand, without having to worry about saying the wrong thing.I imagine that you'd get similar results from an experiment where you instructed everyone to behave like Tea-Party conservatives, or Marxist-Leninists, or Mormons.
Open for comments. Sign in
or create your Guardian account
to join the discussion.
-
Abnehm- Industrie schockiert
Forscher stößt auf eine neue Methode zur Fettverbrennung-12 Kg in 30 Tagenhier lesen >> -
Ab dem 13.11. bei Lidl
Verrückt nach Winter. Tolle Angebote für Spaß im Freien jetzt entdecken!Zu den Angeboten. >> -
Abnehm- Industrie schockiert
Forscher stößt auf eine neue Methode zur Fettverbrennung-12 Kg in 30 Tagenhier lesen >> -
Ab dem 13.11. bei Lidl
Verrückt nach Winter. Tolle Angebote für Spaß im Freien jetzt entdecken!Zu den Angeboten. >>
Today's best video
-
What's the point of the G20, anyway?
Find out with our animation why the G20 forum exists and what it's supposed to do61 comments -
Philae lands on comet
European Space Agency's first image from touch-down on comet -
Artists attempt to build world's biggest sandcastle
A team of artists complete what could be the largest sandcastle ever built in Niteroi, Brazil -
'Thunder' Law sets basketball record
Corey 'Thunder' Law of the Harlem Globetrotters makes furthest ever basketball shot
The Guardian's
online dating site
online dating site
On Comment is free
Last 24 hours
-
1. Sainsbury’s Christmas ad is a dangerous and disrespectful masterpiece | Ally Fogg
- 2. Women, beware this PUA army of sleazebags, saddos and weirdos | Hadley Freeman
- 3. Six myths about how the unions are ruining Britain | Ellie Mae O'Hagan
- 4. Spare me the selfie school of feminism: women always give up too much information | Suzanne Moore
- 5. Political correctness really works! Sorry, conservatives, but science just said so | Oliver Burkeman
- More most viewed
Last 24 hours
-
1. Ukraine has ignored the far right for too long – it must wake up to the danger | Volodymyr Ishchenko
- 2. How to solve the Syrian crisis | Edward Dark
- 3. One World Trade Center's rescued window washers: a human triumph we needed | Jonathan Jones
- 4. Ed Miliband’s ‘zero-zero economy’ speech scores crucial points | Tom Clark
- 5. Sainsbury’s Christmas ad is a dangerous and disrespectful masterpiece | Ally Fogg
- All today's stories
This week's bestsellers
-
1. Bedside Guardian 2014
by Becky Gardiner £10.99 -
2.
I Think I Can See Where You're Going Wrong
by Marc Burrows £6.99
-
3.
Germany
by Neil MacGregor £22.00
-
4.
Nairn's London
by Ian Nairn £7.99
-
5.
Secret Footballer's Guide to the Modern Game
by Secret Footballer £8.99
Search the Guardian bookshop
Latest posts
-
16min ago
Ukraine has ignored the far right for too long – it must wake up to the danger
Volodymyr Ishchenko: The indifference of officials and mainstream opinion to the election of far-right MPs is hugely worrying 3 comments -
36min ago
How to solve the Syrian crisis
Edward Dark: The survival of Assad’s regime and growth of jihadist groups are horrible prospects. International actors need to put aside self-interest and start meaningful talks 22 comments
Comment from the paper
-
Simon Jenkins: Ignore the value of beauty and vandalism is the result
-
Natalie Haynes: My Thought for the Day: most of us are trying not to be dicks
Find the latest jobs in your sector:
- License/buy our content |
- Privacy policy |
- Terms & conditions |
- Advertising guide |
- Accessibility |
- A-Z index |
- Inside the Guardian blog |
- About us |
- Work for us |
- Join our dating site today
- © 2014 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.
Send to a friend
Share
Short link for this page: http://gu.com/p/439fj
Contact us
- Report errors or inaccuracies: userhelp@theguardian.com
- Letters for publication should be sent to: guardian.letters@theguardian.com
- If you need help using the site: userhelp@theguardian.com
-
Call the main Guardian and Observer switchboard:
+44 (0)20 3353 2000
Close