Forums > Social Discussion > PC gone absolutely raving insane
Login/Join to ParticipatePooh-Bah
1,662 posts
Location: Bristol
1,662 posts
Location: Bristol
Posted:
ok, i know there's always been a few people who are a bit ott about political correctness - but it seems to me that recently the PC bug is infecting even your sensible lay-person.
this is just my opinion, so if you find it offensive then bear that in mind before replying, but some people - argh!!!! It gets to the point where threads like [Old link] have to have someone posting to defend Hitler!!!
But nazism aside, a certain amount of discussion on sensitive matters like religion, politics, you know, that stuff that actually affects people's lives (as opposed to weather David Cameron has ever taken coke) is useful, and constructive.
in this world, people are insulted every day. they don't die from it, they aren't scarred for life. (and i'm not talking baout shouting names in the street, violence, you know.. actual racism) maybe they take another look at their views or maybe they just think you are a w***er. either way, that's their choice.
i can see free speech getting closer and closer to that drain, and it worries me. it worries me that in the future we will all be so busy discussing whether David & Kate took coke, and forget that some people are killing eachother in Iraq.
On another note....
look at this . i'm sure a lot of people saw this story. it made me sad that i'm not allowed to be proud of my country anymore. being proud of my country doesn't, for example, mean that i think anyone who's not caucasian doesn't belong here. it doesn't mean that i think asylum seekrs are scum, it doesn't, in short, mean i am a racist. i am pround of my country partly because it is multicultural, and i think it would be nice to set a standard for some other counries rather than pretend i am embarrased to live here.
ok, i know there's always been a few people who are a bit ott about political correctness - but it seems to me that recently the PC bug is infecting even your sensible lay-person.
this is just my opinion, so if you find it offensive then bear that in mind before replying, but some people - argh!!!! It gets to the point where threads like [Old link] have to have someone posting to defend Hitler!!!
But nazism aside, a certain amount of discussion on sensitive matters like religion, politics, you know, that stuff that actually affects people's lives (as opposed to weather David Cameron has ever taken coke) is useful, and constructive.
in this world, people are insulted every day. they don't die from it, they aren't scarred for life. (and i'm not talking baout shouting names in the street, violence, you know.. actual racism) maybe they take another look at their views or maybe they just think you are a w***er. either way, that's their choice.
i can see free speech getting closer and closer to that drain, and it worries me. it worries me that in the future we will all be so busy discussing whether David & Kate took coke, and forget that some people are killing eachother in Iraq.
On another note....
look at this . i'm sure a lot of people saw this story. it made me sad that i'm not allowed to be proud of my country anymore. being proud of my country doesn't, for example, mean that i think anyone who's not caucasian doesn't belong here. it doesn't mean that i think asylum seekrs are scum, it doesn't, in short, mean i am a racist. i am pround of my country partly because it is multicultural, and i think it would be nice to set a standard for some other counries rather than pretend i am embarrased to live here.
I had a dream that my friend had a
strong-bad pop up book,
it was the book of my dreams.
BRONZE Member
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
Posted:
It's a bit... well... it seems like you either apologise in advance for maybe perhaps possibly insulting someone (which is naff, I agree, but the safe route), or you don't, in which case someone will usually step up and call you offensive and not politically correct. I sometimes go for the safe route, just because, especially in the discussions thread, once the moral pc-ness enters a discussion it destroys discussion about the actual topic
I think pc is very much depending on the background, too - in Germany where I'm from it involves to NEVER say you're proud of your country, or worse, to be German, and you generally assume foreigners are good people and are innocent until proven guilty, whereas anyone with a slight right-wing attitude is guilty until proven innocent. (Now here should be the pc "Mind you, I'm not defending right-wing views"...) That's in public, of course, not what people would say privately.
In Britain, it seems to be okay to call the French frogs and the German Nazis on television and in the news as much as possible, but when a black person gets insulted the one responsible gets sacked.
In Canada, the most important thing (when I was there) seemed to be to use unisex job descriptions and avoid upsetting feminists, and to not use the correct terms for people from different ethnicities. Though personally I can't see why "black" would be insulting, I guess going along with it can't hurt
When preparing for my test of english as a foreign language, I was told repeatedly to avoid writing the essay using "he" or "she" because that might seem offensive to the American "male or female" that read it, but that I was to use "he or she" or alternate between the two, completely neglecting content, style and meaning over pc.
Add all the "....ly challenged" to replace disabled, short, fat, ...
I agree it's all going to far - part of it is probably the sueing culture for discrimination. It's good that laws exist to protect those who are discriminated against, but when everyone who has a personal grudge or wants some money from their employer uses them to sue for nearly nothing, it's hard to draw a line, and it's understandable that most tend to prefer the safe route to causing unnecessary arguments.
It's a bit... well... it seems like you either apologise in advance for maybe perhaps possibly insulting someone (which is naff, I agree, but the safe route), or you don't, in which case someone will usually step up and call you offensive and not politically correct. I sometimes go for the safe route, just because, especially in the discussions thread, once the moral pc-ness enters a discussion it destroys discussion about the actual topic
I think pc is very much depending on the background, too - in Germany where I'm from it involves to NEVER say you're proud of your country, or worse, to be German, and you generally assume foreigners are good people and are innocent until proven guilty, whereas anyone with a slight right-wing attitude is guilty until proven innocent. (Now here should be the pc "Mind you, I'm not defending right-wing views"...) That's in public, of course, not what people would say privately.
In Britain, it seems to be okay to call the French frogs and the German Nazis on television and in the news as much as possible, but when a black person gets insulted the one responsible gets sacked.
In Canada, the most important thing (when I was there) seemed to be to use unisex job descriptions and avoid upsetting feminists, and to not use the correct terms for people from different ethnicities. Though personally I can't see why "black" would be insulting, I guess going along with it can't hurt
When preparing for my test of english as a foreign language, I was told repeatedly to avoid writing the essay using "he" or "she" because that might seem offensive to the American "male or female" that read it, but that I was to use "he or she" or alternate between the two, completely neglecting content, style and meaning over pc.
Add all the "....ly challenged" to replace disabled, short, fat, ...
I agree it's all going to far - part of it is probably the sueing culture for discrimination. It's good that laws exist to protect those who are discriminated against, but when everyone who has a personal grudge or wants some money from their employer uses them to sue for nearly nothing, it's hard to draw a line, and it's understandable that most tend to prefer the safe route to causing unnecessary arguments.
"vices are like genitals - most are ugly to behold, and yet we find that our own are dear to us."
(G.W. Dahlquist)
Owner of Dragosani's left half
Pooh-Bah
1,662 posts
Location: Bristol
1,662 posts
Location: Bristol
Posted:
but that's exactly what i'm talking about - not the disclaimers themselves, but the need for the in the first place - i wish we could all just stop apologising all the time & only feel guilty if we've actually done something wrong.
a good point, but i think the compensation culture is pretty much universally recognised now. what i was trying to get at (maybe unclearly) is that the average man on the street seems to be getting so caught up with it that we can't even have a simple chat on HoP without people having to leave disclaimers all over that place. it used to be that OTT PC was for idiots who sue to much and law makers, now we're all having to watch our backs
Written by: Birgit
It's a bit... well... it seems like you either apologise in advance for maybe perhaps possibly insulting someone (which is naff, I agree, but the safe route), or you don't, in which case someone will usually step up and call you offensive and not politically correct.
but that's exactly what i'm talking about - not the disclaimers themselves, but the need for the in the first place - i wish we could all just stop apologising all the time & only feel guilty if we've actually done something wrong.
Written by: Birgit
I agree it's all going to far - part of it is probably the sueing culture for discrimination. It's good that laws exist to protect those who are discriminated against, but when everyone who has a personal grudge or wants some money from their employer uses them to sue for nearly nothing, it's hard to draw a line, and it's understandable that most tend to prefer the safe route to causing unnecessary arguments.
a good point, but i think the compensation culture is pretty much universally recognised now. what i was trying to get at (maybe unclearly) is that the average man on the street seems to be getting so caught up with it that we can't even have a simple chat on HoP without people having to leave disclaimers all over that place. it used to be that OTT PC was for idiots who sue to much and law makers, now we're all having to watch our backs
I had a dream that my friend had a
strong-bad pop up book,
it was the book of my dreams.
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
There's an established thread on the st george pin in prison issue here-
[Old link]
Personally where pc stuff is concerned, the older I've got the more I find myself being more annoyed by those who outrightedly condemn a lot of it in quite a knee-jerk fashion.
Personally, if I write an article I will not use 'he' or 'she' unless I'm referring to someone who is specifically male or female- as a general term I substitue 'he or she' because that is what I am actually referring to.
Traditionally males have been seen as more important; many feel that the disproportionate use of 'he' is a factor which supports that misconception. Put that way it makes perfect sense that someone should use 'he or she' rather than 'he'.
A lot of that which is often dismissed as being 'pc' actually makes sense to me, examples being trying to eliminate exclusion and discrimination from our language; another being measures to defend the rights of non-smokers to work and socialise in clean air environements (also pre-existing threads on this one, which I've contributed to extensively).
And I don't mind someone offering reasoned arguments again specific aspects of pc that they disagree with- some pc innovations are undoubtably going to go too far, or be counter-productive; critisisng them and opening up discussion is always going to be a good thing.
But, it strikes me that many of those who do disagree with them don't actually address most of the issues in a rational manner, but instead lump it all together as 'pc', or 'pc gone mad' or (as you put it), the 'pc bug'- and their main 'argument' seems to be that 'it's pc, therefore it's bad' with no real effort to explain why the specific issue is bad.
Even to say 'the pc bug'- is indicative of that kind of attitude, it's effectively simply insulting pc by effectively calling it an annoying insect like thing- you may not be aware of that, or see it that way; but the people you're trying to convince, assuming they've got a fair degree of intelligence, will immediately spot it as an emotive an empty tactic.
You'll get more respect if you state the issue in an objective and unbiased way, and then offer reasons for your view, in a rational discussion.
Even if some pc issues go too far, the fact remains that much of what is referred to as 'pc', has made our culture a vastly better place for many disadvantaged or disabled people.
Finally, wheelchair users are getting access to public buildings because of legislation; non-smokers can use a bus, or sit in a university lecture theatre, without having to breathe other peoples smoke; etc, etc.
All these things come under the category of what is generally called 'pc'.
There's an established thread on the st george pin in prison issue here-
[Old link]
Personally where pc stuff is concerned, the older I've got the more I find myself being more annoyed by those who outrightedly condemn a lot of it in quite a knee-jerk fashion.
Personally, if I write an article I will not use 'he' or 'she' unless I'm referring to someone who is specifically male or female- as a general term I substitue 'he or she' because that is what I am actually referring to.
Traditionally males have been seen as more important; many feel that the disproportionate use of 'he' is a factor which supports that misconception. Put that way it makes perfect sense that someone should use 'he or she' rather than 'he'.
A lot of that which is often dismissed as being 'pc' actually makes sense to me, examples being trying to eliminate exclusion and discrimination from our language; another being measures to defend the rights of non-smokers to work and socialise in clean air environements (also pre-existing threads on this one, which I've contributed to extensively).
And I don't mind someone offering reasoned arguments again specific aspects of pc that they disagree with- some pc innovations are undoubtably going to go too far, or be counter-productive; critisisng them and opening up discussion is always going to be a good thing.
But, it strikes me that many of those who do disagree with them don't actually address most of the issues in a rational manner, but instead lump it all together as 'pc', or 'pc gone mad' or (as you put it), the 'pc bug'- and their main 'argument' seems to be that 'it's pc, therefore it's bad' with no real effort to explain why the specific issue is bad.
Even to say 'the pc bug'- is indicative of that kind of attitude, it's effectively simply insulting pc by effectively calling it an annoying insect like thing- you may not be aware of that, or see it that way; but the people you're trying to convince, assuming they've got a fair degree of intelligence, will immediately spot it as an emotive an empty tactic.
You'll get more respect if you state the issue in an objective and unbiased way, and then offer reasons for your view, in a rational discussion.
Even if some pc issues go too far, the fact remains that much of what is referred to as 'pc', has made our culture a vastly better place for many disadvantaged or disabled people.
Finally, wheelchair users are getting access to public buildings because of legislation; non-smokers can use a bus, or sit in a university lecture theatre, without having to breathe other peoples smoke; etc, etc.
All these things come under the category of what is generally called 'pc'.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
Posted:
As might have become obvious from some of my other post I don't have many qualms about insulting people. I do, however, follow a code of honour about it.
As might have become obvious from some of my other post I don't have many qualms about insulting people. I do, however, follow a code of honour about it.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
SILVER Member
15,417 posts
Location: South Wales
15,417 posts
Location: South Wales
Posted:
Warning: The following post contatins totally irrelevant information.
"the older I've got" - But you are only as old as the woman you feel Dave
Warning: The following post contatins totally irrelevant information.
"the older I've got" - But you are only as old as the woman you feel Dave
BRONZE Member
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
Posted:
I think part of the problem is that there's so many new people here all the time, and the community is so big that you just can't know other people's backgrounds. So you get 1. the ones that do get insulted and 2. the ones that don't know that often you don't get moaned at if you say something incorrect.
I agree it's not good, but I doubt that there's anything that can be done about it. Forum rules say "nothing offensive", but yeah, most people do get wound up about details and forget the big picture. I do it, too. I admit to not caring much about pc, but never trying to offend anyone, so unless it's blatently obvious to me that someone tries to be offensive I don't get all wound up.
I don't mind people complaining if they're offended by something, you don't know what they've experienced in the past and what they're sensitive to. It's just when the vague "someone might be offended" comes in that I think it goes to far.
I think part of the problem is that there's so many new people here all the time, and the community is so big that you just can't know other people's backgrounds. So you get 1. the ones that do get insulted and 2. the ones that don't know that often you don't get moaned at if you say something incorrect.
I agree it's not good, but I doubt that there's anything that can be done about it. Forum rules say "nothing offensive", but yeah, most people do get wound up about details and forget the big picture. I do it, too. I admit to not caring much about pc, but never trying to offend anyone, so unless it's blatently obvious to me that someone tries to be offensive I don't get all wound up.
I don't mind people complaining if they're offended by something, you don't know what they've experienced in the past and what they're sensitive to. It's just when the vague "someone might be offended" comes in that I think it goes to far.
"vices are like genitals - most are ugly to behold, and yet we find that our own are dear to us."
(G.W. Dahlquist)
Owner of Dragosani's left half
Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
Posted:
On the topic of offensive jokes, here's one which is both rascist and sexist:
What do you get if you cross a black man with a white woman?
On the topic of offensive jokes, here's one which is both rascist and sexist:
What do you get if you cross a black man with a white woman?
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
Pooh-Bah
1,662 posts
Location: Bristol
1,662 posts
Location: Bristol
Posted:
yeah, but that's exactly what i'm not talking about.
obviously that stuff is necessary, i don't think anyone's debating that. even a total idiot could see that not discriminating against people is a good idea - and if they couldn't, well, that's what the laws are for isn't it?
what i'm taking about is having to put disclaimers on things that just aren't offensive whatever way you look at them. people who say they're insulted by something like a pin badge...well...who knows why? i have no idea why someone would find a picture of hitler with a banjo in the least bit offensive, yet you still see the disclaimer on the thread.
legitmate political correctness, obviously. the thing is now people are watching their backs all the time just in case someone is offended by it....not even that they might get sued, but that people might think badly of them. Being non PC is the new racism i guess.
increasingly it seems like 'i think your religion is wrong' is not allowed any more, or patriotism is seen as xenophobia, and i find that worrying, as it doesn't actaully stop all that stuff anyway. stopping people saying racist things doesn't stop them from being racist...the only way to do that is through education.
Written by: onewheeldave
Even if some pc issues go too far, the fact remains that much of what is referred to as 'pc', has made our culture a vastly better place for many disadvantaged or disabled people.
Finally, wheelchair users are getting access to public buildings because of legislation; non-smokers can use a bus, or sit in a university lecture theatre, without having to breathe other peoples smoke; etc, etc.
All these things come under the category of what is generally called 'pc'.
yeah, but that's exactly what i'm not talking about.
obviously that stuff is necessary, i don't think anyone's debating that. even a total idiot could see that not discriminating against people is a good idea - and if they couldn't, well, that's what the laws are for isn't it?
what i'm taking about is having to put disclaimers on things that just aren't offensive whatever way you look at them. people who say they're insulted by something like a pin badge...well...who knows why? i have no idea why someone would find a picture of hitler with a banjo in the least bit offensive, yet you still see the disclaimer on the thread.
legitmate political correctness, obviously. the thing is now people are watching their backs all the time just in case someone is offended by it....not even that they might get sued, but that people might think badly of them. Being non PC is the new racism i guess.
increasingly it seems like 'i think your religion is wrong' is not allowed any more, or patriotism is seen as xenophobia, and i find that worrying, as it doesn't actaully stop all that stuff anyway. stopping people saying racist things doesn't stop them from being racist...the only way to do that is through education.
I had a dream that my friend had a
strong-bad pop up book,
it was the book of my dreams.
Internet Hate Machine
10,530 posts
Location: They seek him here, they seek him there...
10,530 posts
Location: They seek him here, they seek him there...
Posted:
This whole demand for PCnes is totally pissing me off now.
Stuff is getting less funny. Which is lame.... and stuff....
This whole demand for PCnes is totally pissing me off now.
Stuff is getting less funny. Which is lame.... and stuff....
The existance of flamethrowers says that someone, somewhere, at sometime said "I need to set that thing on fire, but it's too far away."
GOLD Member
Self-Flagellation Expert
3,414 posts
Location: Bogged at CG, Australia
Self-Flagellation Expert
3,414 posts
Location: Bogged at CG, Australia
Posted:
Jeff(fake) - note the 'discussion' at the top there. This isn't the forum, nor the thread for stuff like that.
One could, playing the devil's advocate, argue even that smoking bans on busses/in halls etc is bad - What about the smokers that wish to smoke in those areas, but now aren't allowed to? That's discriminatory against people who have a scientifically proven addiction.
Where's the line drawn between being pc and being discriminatory?
Jeff(fake) - note the 'discussion' at the top there. This isn't the forum, nor the thread for stuff like that.
One could, playing the devil's advocate, argue even that smoking bans on busses/in halls etc is bad - What about the smokers that wish to smoke in those areas, but now aren't allowed to? That's discriminatory against people who have a scientifically proven addiction.
Where's the line drawn between being pc and being discriminatory?
"beg beg grovel beg grovel"
"master"
--FSA
"There was an arse there, i couldn't help myself"
--Rougie
Internet Hate Machine
10,530 posts
Location: They seek him here, they seek him there...
10,530 posts
Location: They seek him here, they seek him there...
Posted:
I think its better if we just ignore it and move on. S'what everyone else did
I think its better if we just ignore it and move on. S'what everyone else did
The existance of flamethrowers says that someone, somewhere, at sometime said "I need to set that thing on fire, but it's too far away."
Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
Posted:
Examples are a critical part of any discussion. Additionally, this is HoP , and a deathly serious forum would be both boring and pointless. After all, no matter what is written here the woes of the world aren't going to disappear (unless someone sparks some kind of insurgency).
In short, this is exactly the forum and thread for it. So lighten up.
And you get a car thief who can't drive.
Written by: MiG
Jeff(fake) - note the 'discussion' at the top there. This isn't the forum, nor the thread for stuff like that.
Examples are a critical part of any discussion. Additionally, this is HoP , and a deathly serious forum would be both boring and pointless. After all, no matter what is written here the woes of the world aren't going to disappear (unless someone sparks some kind of insurgency).
In short, this is exactly the forum and thread for it. So lighten up.
And you get a car thief who can't drive.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
Is that the point of it though?
I'd argue that the value of stopping people saying out-and-out racist stuff is that it has an effect on the rest of the population.
Children who grow up in a racist culture will be more prone to adopting those racist attitudes.
So, even if banning grossly innapropriate behaviour and speech doesn't directly stop the guilty individuals- there is still immense value in instigating those bans.
I would also argue that, to an extent, it will affect some of the individuals themselves- for example, a person who has habitually used the word 'coon' in reference to his/her workmates, will, at least whilst at work, start to rein in that habit.
This will not necessarily alter any racist attitudes he/she may have, but it will cut down on the habituality of it (and,for many, it is the habituality of the use that is at the root of it, rather than any overt racism)- in some cases it may even get them thinking about the real grounds behind their, till then, habitual use of such terms.
(of course, in some individuals, there's scope for it deepening resentment, but, for those with the attitude of blaming ethnic minorities for decisions which are actually government intitiatives, well, they're probably beyond reason anyway).
I think it's also important to stop the knee-jerk hostility to pc attempts to resolve these issues partly because we can then address some real issues that are ignored to some extent due to being blanketed by 'pc'.
An example would be racism and prejudicewithin minority cultures, which is rife, but not often addressed due to fears of being seen to be interfering in those cultures (examples being, in the UK, racism between blacks of african descent and those of jamacan descent, or the plight of some women in muslim based cultures).
Which is pretty much in agreement with what you said about critisising religion isn't it?
The thing is, we really need to look into the specific issues and judge them on their own merits; and this is where I think, as a rational person, you do yourself and your cause no favours by using phrases like 'pc bug' or thread titles like 'PC gone absolutely raving insane".
So many past issues that were knee-jerkedly labeled as 'pc gone mad', on closer investigation, turned out to be anything but- they turned out to be valid uses of pc and brought improvement into the world; and a lot of us, when we see phrases like that, take it as indication that the user is one of those people who do just moan about proposed changes without subjecting them to rational scrutiny and judgement (prime examples being proposed bans on smoking on buses and in colleges).
On the tie-pin issue, IMO, in the grand scheme of things, I think it's a trivial gripe compared to some of those bigger issues that are not being addressed.
Firstly, prison is a violent culture with a big emphasis on tribal/gang membership, often based on race. Whether the St George pin is or isn't racist is a minor point- some non-whites see it as being so, and you can imagine the tension it could cause if prison guards where seen to be supporting white groups.
Lastly, i believe on the thread discussing it, it was discovered that it was actually all tie pins that were banned? ie not st george ones specifically.
Written by:
Tao Star stopping people saying racist things doesn't stop them from being racist...
Is that the point of it though?
I'd argue that the value of stopping people saying out-and-out racist stuff is that it has an effect on the rest of the population.
Children who grow up in a racist culture will be more prone to adopting those racist attitudes.
So, even if banning grossly innapropriate behaviour and speech doesn't directly stop the guilty individuals- there is still immense value in instigating those bans.
I would also argue that, to an extent, it will affect some of the individuals themselves- for example, a person who has habitually used the word 'coon' in reference to his/her workmates, will, at least whilst at work, start to rein in that habit.
This will not necessarily alter any racist attitudes he/she may have, but it will cut down on the habituality of it (and,for many, it is the habituality of the use that is at the root of it, rather than any overt racism)- in some cases it may even get them thinking about the real grounds behind their, till then, habitual use of such terms.
(of course, in some individuals, there's scope for it deepening resentment, but, for those with the attitude of blaming ethnic minorities for decisions which are actually government intitiatives, well, they're probably beyond reason anyway).
I think it's also important to stop the knee-jerk hostility to pc attempts to resolve these issues partly because we can then address some real issues that are ignored to some extent due to being blanketed by 'pc'.
An example would be racism and prejudicewithin minority cultures, which is rife, but not often addressed due to fears of being seen to be interfering in those cultures (examples being, in the UK, racism between blacks of african descent and those of jamacan descent, or the plight of some women in muslim based cultures).
Which is pretty much in agreement with what you said about critisising religion isn't it?
The thing is, we really need to look into the specific issues and judge them on their own merits; and this is where I think, as a rational person, you do yourself and your cause no favours by using phrases like 'pc bug' or thread titles like 'PC gone absolutely raving insane".
So many past issues that were knee-jerkedly labeled as 'pc gone mad', on closer investigation, turned out to be anything but- they turned out to be valid uses of pc and brought improvement into the world; and a lot of us, when we see phrases like that, take it as indication that the user is one of those people who do just moan about proposed changes without subjecting them to rational scrutiny and judgement (prime examples being proposed bans on smoking on buses and in colleges).
On the tie-pin issue, IMO, in the grand scheme of things, I think it's a trivial gripe compared to some of those bigger issues that are not being addressed.
Firstly, prison is a violent culture with a big emphasis on tribal/gang membership, often based on race. Whether the St George pin is or isn't racist is a minor point- some non-whites see it as being so, and you can imagine the tension it could cause if prison guards where seen to be supporting white groups.
Lastly, i believe on the thread discussing it, it was discovered that it was actually all tie pins that were banned? ie not st george ones specifically.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
GOLD Member
Self-Flagellation Expert
3,414 posts
Location: Bogged at CG, Australia
Self-Flagellation Expert
3,414 posts
Location: Bogged at CG, Australia
Posted:
Being even more devils advocatey, why shouldn't we worry about offending nazi-supporters? They're people too. Admittedly, they're not a highly thought of lot, but you can expect that from people encountering someone that has different values on life, races and other things that nazism looks at different to what we do.
Heck, one could even say that hitler wasn't so much bad, as different, and nazism bashing is a bad thing. But saying that is just bound to open a can of worms.
So, in the spirit of not wanting to offend anyone, i'll let you all know that i don't support that point of view, and i in no way believe nazism, genocide, hitler, nor any associated nor affiliated person, place, object, animal, mineral or vegetable was/is/will be a good thing. However, that being said, if any person who happens to be reading this is a supporter of nazism, i respect that your decision to follow that path is your own choice, and do not wish to attempt to convert you to any other forms of belief/social/political structure.
go-...deity. That disclaimer is longer than my post...
Being even more devils advocatey, why shouldn't we worry about offending nazi-supporters? They're people too. Admittedly, they're not a highly thought of lot, but you can expect that from people encountering someone that has different values on life, races and other things that nazism looks at different to what we do.
Heck, one could even say that hitler wasn't so much bad, as different, and nazism bashing is a bad thing. But saying that is just bound to open a can of worms.
So, in the spirit of not wanting to offend anyone, i'll let you all know that i don't support that point of view, and i in no way believe nazism, genocide, hitler, nor any associated nor affiliated person, place, object, animal, mineral or vegetable was/is/will be a good thing. However, that being said, if any person who happens to be reading this is a supporter of nazism, i respect that your decision to follow that path is your own choice, and do not wish to attempt to convert you to any other forms of belief/social/political structure.
go-...deity. That disclaimer is longer than my post...
"beg beg grovel beg grovel"
"master"
--FSA
"There was an arse there, i couldn't help myself"
--Rougie
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
It's where we judge it to be: either, as an individual forming your opinion (hopefully based on rational reasoning as opposed to whim) your opinion on what is going too far, and what is just right: or, for society, the line is place according to laws/regulations etc.
Specifically, where your smoking issue is concerned; for non-smokers to have smoke forced on them on public transport and colleges, is clearly an infringement on their right to clean air and health.
Whereas, for smokers, they still have their right to smoke (off the bus, outside the college etc).
So it is a trade off, and we do have to choose: personally, my choice (and the choice of many others), based on the above, and many other aspects of the issue, is to stand for the rights of non-smokers to have clean air.
With that issue, one of the groups is going to either lose their right, or be restricted in some way- there is no way round it; a desision has to be made.
(what i'm saying there is that there is no option of not choosing- to not have imposed a ban is to deny the rights of the non-smokers).
Given that a decision- a judgement has to be made, I make a reasoned choice which leads me to support the non-smoker.
(Incidently, if you're going to follow this particualr issue, it could easily take the thread well off-topic, so it would be best to maybe start a new thread up)
Written by: MiG
One could, playing the devil's advocate, argue even that smoking bans on busses/in halls etc is bad - What about the smokers that wish to smoke in those areas, but now aren't allowed to? That's discriminatory against people who have a scientifically proven addiction.
Where's the line drawn between being pc and being discriminatory?
It's where we judge it to be: either, as an individual forming your opinion (hopefully based on rational reasoning as opposed to whim) your opinion on what is going too far, and what is just right: or, for society, the line is place according to laws/regulations etc.
Specifically, where your smoking issue is concerned; for non-smokers to have smoke forced on them on public transport and colleges, is clearly an infringement on their right to clean air and health.
Whereas, for smokers, they still have their right to smoke (off the bus, outside the college etc).
So it is a trade off, and we do have to choose: personally, my choice (and the choice of many others), based on the above, and many other aspects of the issue, is to stand for the rights of non-smokers to have clean air.
With that issue, one of the groups is going to either lose their right, or be restricted in some way- there is no way round it; a desision has to be made.
(what i'm saying there is that there is no option of not choosing- to not have imposed a ban is to deny the rights of the non-smokers).
Given that a decision- a judgement has to be made, I make a reasoned choice which leads me to support the non-smoker.
(Incidently, if you're going to follow this particualr issue, it could easily take the thread well off-topic, so it would be best to maybe start a new thread up)
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
BRONZE Member
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
Posted:
owd, in response to your explanation about lots of people finding the use of "he" offensive - I doubt it. I've never met anyone who's complained about it, and I've met about a dozen people who found using "he or she" instead a pain. It's probably not a statistically significant observation, since none of my friends tend to care about the history of the strong "he", but empiry tells me it can't be that bad.
Even if it does offend some people, I doubt that it's important enough to be of significance to evaluate the language abilities of people from different cultures in the toefl test.
I also reserve the right to say "pc gone mad" when I think it HAS gone mad and taken over rational thinking. I've never even heard "the pc bug", but saying this is comparing pc to annoying insects is a bit of an exaggeration. On the other hand, one could say you're being offensive to insects here by assuming that the comparison to a bug has to be a negative thing. But EVERYONE knows that you didn't mean that, just like (I think) everyone knows that Tao Star wasn't trying to make pc as bad as you put it.
In a group of people that treat each other with respect, there is no need for even having the word pc. I'd go as far as saying we don't need it, we could just call it respect, tolerance, politeness, whatever is required in a given situation, without making up a new, abstract name. I think one reason some of us get fed up with it is that in most situations, we do not need to think about it, and we are willing to learn when people tell us we've offended them. My guess is that those who don't do this anyways are beyond being cured by pc.
owd, in response to your explanation about lots of people finding the use of "he" offensive - I doubt it. I've never met anyone who's complained about it, and I've met about a dozen people who found using "he or she" instead a pain. It's probably not a statistically significant observation, since none of my friends tend to care about the history of the strong "he", but empiry tells me it can't be that bad.
Even if it does offend some people, I doubt that it's important enough to be of significance to evaluate the language abilities of people from different cultures in the toefl test.
I also reserve the right to say "pc gone mad" when I think it HAS gone mad and taken over rational thinking. I've never even heard "the pc bug", but saying this is comparing pc to annoying insects is a bit of an exaggeration. On the other hand, one could say you're being offensive to insects here by assuming that the comparison to a bug has to be a negative thing. But EVERYONE knows that you didn't mean that, just like (I think) everyone knows that Tao Star wasn't trying to make pc as bad as you put it.
In a group of people that treat each other with respect, there is no need for even having the word pc. I'd go as far as saying we don't need it, we could just call it respect, tolerance, politeness, whatever is required in a given situation, without making up a new, abstract name. I think one reason some of us get fed up with it is that in most situations, we do not need to think about it, and we are willing to learn when people tell us we've offended them. My guess is that those who don't do this anyways are beyond being cured by pc.
"vices are like genitals - most are ugly to behold, and yet we find that our own are dear to us."
(G.W. Dahlquist)
Owner of Dragosani's left half
Pooh-Bah
1,662 posts
Location: Bristol
1,662 posts
Location: Bristol
Posted:
a very good point.
while i agree, i would argue that this is racims, not political incorrectness. I draw a distinction between the two - some behaviour is so obviously not neccessary or is covered by law. by political incorrectness i understand 'behaviour which could be interpreted as racis/sexist, whatever' rather than something which is simply an offensive word. in this day & age i think that 'coon' is generally accepted as not ok.
my issue here is respect. i think that with respect all of the problems that pc is supposed to solve would not exist. PC, while having benefits as you described, often covers up legitimate discussion which would get the problems talked about and would allow for education & understanding.
the way i see it is that pc is more and more starting to replace education and an attempt an understanding, and is being used as a method of shutting people up.
Mig's point is a really good one which demonstartes exactly this. if you happened to be a member of the nazi party or similar, you're very likely to be silenced in the name of PC. i would rather hear what they have to say, because there is a whole political system there, not just racism, through helping people to understand eachother they can hold on to their values and ideals, whilst disregarding the parts that are xenophobic. maybe.
because pc is not an official regulated thing it doesn't necessarly protect everyone equally, but just the opinions of the masses. I wonder what the response would have been to someone who wanted to wear a swastika badge or a hammer & sickle in that prison, or what about a gay pride badge or an 'atheism rocks!' badge. maybe a lot less light handed than banning the badge? (just specualtion...)
you seem to be misunderstanding what i'm saying. i'm NOT saying that pc is bad persay. i do agree that it has it's place. what i'm saying is that it's crossed over from being a guide on the blurry line between legit discussion and the bad stuff, and is now on one side of that line, so not only can you not cross it, you just can't go near it!
i take your points that being politically correct is good in some situations, and i certainly wouldn't get rid of it, i just think that not being pc has developed a certain social stigma which makes people scared. it certainly makes me bite my tongue sometimes and then afterwards i realise that i had every right to say what i was about to say.
i also think that a certain amount of non-pc is useful in certain circumstances. just take a look at bill hicks - not very reverent, but he certainly made his point.
Written by: onewheeldave
I'd argue that the value of stopping people saying out-and-out racist stuff is that it has an effect on the rest of the population.
Children who grow up in a racist culture will be more prone to adopting those racist attitudes.
So, even if banning grossly innapropriate behaviour and speech doesn't directly stop the guilty individuals- there is still immense value in instigating those bans.
a very good point.
Written by: onewheeldave
I would also argue that, to an extent, it will affect some of the individuals themselves- for example, a person who has habitually used the word 'coon' in reference to his/her workmates, will, at least whilst at work, start to rein in that habit.
while i agree, i would argue that this is racims, not political incorrectness. I draw a distinction between the two - some behaviour is so obviously not neccessary or is covered by law. by political incorrectness i understand 'behaviour which could be interpreted as racis/sexist, whatever' rather than something which is simply an offensive word. in this day & age i think that 'coon' is generally accepted as not ok.
my issue here is respect. i think that with respect all of the problems that pc is supposed to solve would not exist. PC, while having benefits as you described, often covers up legitimate discussion which would get the problems talked about and would allow for education & understanding.
the way i see it is that pc is more and more starting to replace education and an attempt an understanding, and is being used as a method of shutting people up.
Mig's point is a really good one which demonstartes exactly this. if you happened to be a member of the nazi party or similar, you're very likely to be silenced in the name of PC. i would rather hear what they have to say, because there is a whole political system there, not just racism, through helping people to understand eachother they can hold on to their values and ideals, whilst disregarding the parts that are xenophobic. maybe.
because pc is not an official regulated thing it doesn't necessarly protect everyone equally, but just the opinions of the masses. I wonder what the response would have been to someone who wanted to wear a swastika badge or a hammer & sickle in that prison, or what about a gay pride badge or an 'atheism rocks!' badge. maybe a lot less light handed than banning the badge? (just specualtion...)
Written by: onewheeldav
I think it's also important to stop the knee-jerk hostility to pc attempts to resolve these issues partly because we can then address some real issues that are ignored to some extent due to being blanketed by 'pc'.
An example would be racism and prejudicewithin minority cultures, which is rife, but not often addressed due to fears of being seen to be interfering in those cultures (examples being, in the UK, racism between blacks of african descent and those of jamacan descent, or the plight of some women in muslim based cultures).
Which is pretty much in agreement with what you said about critisising religion isn't it?
you seem to be misunderstanding what i'm saying. i'm NOT saying that pc is bad persay. i do agree that it has it's place. what i'm saying is that it's crossed over from being a guide on the blurry line between legit discussion and the bad stuff, and is now on one side of that line, so not only can you not cross it, you just can't go near it!
i take your points that being politically correct is good in some situations, and i certainly wouldn't get rid of it, i just think that not being pc has developed a certain social stigma which makes people scared. it certainly makes me bite my tongue sometimes and then afterwards i realise that i had every right to say what i was about to say.
i also think that a certain amount of non-pc is useful in certain circumstances. just take a look at bill hicks - not very reverent, but he certainly made his point.
I had a dream that my friend had a
strong-bad pop up book,
it was the book of my dreams.
GOLD Member
Self-Flagellation Expert
3,414 posts
Location: Bogged at CG, Australia
Self-Flagellation Expert
3,414 posts
Location: Bogged at CG, Australia
Posted:
OWD - smoking was just an example, and that's all for that part of things.
OWD - smoking was just an example, and that's all for that part of things.
"beg beg grovel beg grovel"
"master"
--FSA
"There was an arse there, i couldn't help myself"
--Rougie
veteran
1,376 posts
Location: London, UK
1,376 posts
Location: London, UK
Posted:
I totally disagree
If you ban this kind of speech then it doesn't suddenly stop people believing in it, it just forces them underground and makes them into marytrs.
On the other hand if they're allowed to say that kind of crap in public then it exposes them for the ignorant morons that they are, so people can see for themselves how nasty it is.
Just banning it isn't going to change anyone's beliefs, it takes a genuine long-term change in societal attitudes and not some kind of "hide the symptoms" quick fix.
Written by: onewheeldave
I'd argue that the value of stopping people saying out-and-out racist stuff is that it has an effect on the rest of the population.
Children who grow up in a racist culture will be more prone to adopting those racist attitudes.
So, even if banning grossly innapropriate behaviour and speech doesn't directly stop the guilty individuals- there is still immense value in instigating those bans.
I totally disagree
If you ban this kind of speech then it doesn't suddenly stop people believing in it, it just forces them underground and makes them into marytrs.
On the other hand if they're allowed to say that kind of crap in public then it exposes them for the ignorant morons that they are, so people can see for themselves how nasty it is.
Just banning it isn't going to change anyone's beliefs, it takes a genuine long-term change in societal attitudes and not some kind of "hide the symptoms" quick fix.
"Moo," said the happy cow.
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Posted:
Here's me thinking you were talking about your computer...
I dislike the fact that in every D+D handbook ,the players are constantly referred to as "She" regardless of the fact that 98% (approx) of D+D players are male. What's the point? I mean, it's not representative, and of that 2% I doubt any of the girls/women will be offended...
And can someone explain why "Nigger" is ok used from one black to another, but not from a white to a black? Because I get the impression that if *I* said it, then I might get shot in the head (in some areas), but plenty of people call each other it.
I think we should have a "Bloody Stupid" act of 2005, where anyone wanting to sue/get compensation for something has to have their case evaluated by 3 people who then come to a decision as to whether the case warrants attention, or is indeed, Bloody Stupid.
(So stop suing shops when you trip over in their doorways, dumbass )
(Unless the door is in a rubbish state of repair)
Here's me thinking you were talking about your computer...
I dislike the fact that in every D+D handbook ,the players are constantly referred to as "She" regardless of the fact that 98% (approx) of D+D players are male. What's the point? I mean, it's not representative, and of that 2% I doubt any of the girls/women will be offended...
And can someone explain why "Nigger" is ok used from one black to another, but not from a white to a black? Because I get the impression that if *I* said it, then I might get shot in the head (in some areas), but plenty of people call each other it.
I think we should have a "Bloody Stupid" act of 2005, where anyone wanting to sue/get compensation for something has to have their case evaluated by 3 people who then come to a decision as to whether the case warrants attention, or is indeed, Bloody Stupid.
(So stop suing shops when you trip over in their doorways, dumbass
)(Unless the door is in a rubbish state of repair)
After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Pooh-Bah
1,662 posts
Location: Bristol
1,662 posts
Location: Bristol
Posted:
yeah, i think a little common sense goes a long way in this world. (or would if many people had it!)
the same with loadsa gay references. and the stupid thing is that no one would really know if you were gay or not - they'd have no idea, so in effect anyone can say fag, even though they can't.
personally, i do find it quite insluting when people use 'gay' as a general insult, but i don't go around telling people off about it. i wish they wouldn't, and people that know me well know that, but you have to realise that often people have no intetion of being insulting ona general scale.....i learnt to put up with it & i think a lot of other people could too.
yeah, i think a little common sense goes a long way in this world. (or would if many people had it!)
the same with loadsa gay references. and the stupid thing is that no one would really know if you were gay or not - they'd have no idea, so in effect anyone can say fag, even though they can't.
personally, i do find it quite insluting when people use 'gay' as a general insult, but i don't go around telling people off about it. i wish they wouldn't, and people that know me well know that, but you have to realise that often people have no intetion of being insulting ona general scale.....i learnt to put up with it & i think a lot of other people could too.
I had a dream that my friend had a
strong-bad pop up book,
it was the book of my dreams.
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
I don't recall saying it was offensive- if I did, please point it out and I'll go back and edit it.
The grounds for using 'he or she' to refer to an individual who may be male or female are, to me, nothing to do with offence.
I'm not surprised your friends aren't offended by it- I'm not offended either.
As to them complaining that its a pain to use 'he or she'- i understand that- I thought the same until I made the effort to get into the habit, at which point I came to realise that its not a problem at all. OK, it takes a bit more typing, but so do long words- if that's the problem you may as well start up a campaign to eradicate long words
If it is such a big deal, then there's always the s/he option- that's only 2 letters extra.
You could even set up a computer function key to paste 'he or she' when pressed- that would actually save you a key stroke when compared to typing 'he'!
Why do it though, if 'he' isn't offensive?
Mainly because, IMO, language influences social attitudes in ways that often are not immediately apparent.
Many working class cultures traditionally used words like 'nigger', 'coon', 'paki', 'arse-bandit' (that one means gay by the way).
(I appreciate that these terms are in a different league to blanket use of 'he'- i'm using them here because I think that most people here would consider them grossly innapropriate- but would do so on the grounds of them being offensive. Whereas I'm trying to show that they actually have negative consequences regardless of them being offensive, and that blanket use of 'he' is a milder version of this effect).
Generally, many of the users of those phrases would not consider them racist or discriminatory- simply as labels to mark out who they're talking about.
In Rotherham for example, my friends would ask me if I wanted anything from the 'paki-shop'- they did not consider that to be offensive or racist (one of the group was actually asian, so how could they consider themselves racist?).
Leaving aside all questions of whether 'nigger', 'coon', 'paki', 'arse-bandit' etc are offensive or not- do you think that those terms are appropriate in a work-place, particularly in a work place where some of the workers are asian, or gay?
I think that, without even touching on the offense aspects, that habitual use of terms like that has detrimental effects on the way those groups are perceived and treated.
Getting back to 'he or she'- if, in a culture, it is habitual, when referring to an individual of random gender in writing, as 'he'- then that does have an effect, however subtle and insiduous, and that effect is to place more value on male gender than female.
This is why I personally use 'he or she' when referring to an individual of unspecified gender (arguably, its also grammatically correct in a way that 'he' isn't ie 'he' refers to a male, not to an individual who may be either male or female).
That's my personal choice- I've never suggested that everyone should do it; if you, having read my reasoning above, still want to persist with using 'he' to refer to individuals of unspecified gender, then you're welcome to do so.
Written by: Birgit
owd, in response to your explanation about lots of people finding the use of "he" offensive - I doubt it. I've never met anyone who's complained about it, and I've met about a dozen people who found using "he or she" instead a pain. It's probably not a statistically significant observation, since none of my friends tend to care about the history of the strong "he", but empiry tells me it can't be that bad.
Even if it does offend some people, I doubt that it's important enough to be of significance to evaluate the language abilities of people from different cultures in the toefl test.
I don't recall saying it was offensive- if I did, please point it out and I'll go back and edit it.
The grounds for using 'he or she' to refer to an individual who may be male or female are, to me, nothing to do with offence.
I'm not surprised your friends aren't offended by it- I'm not offended either.
As to them complaining that its a pain to use 'he or she'- i understand that- I thought the same until I made the effort to get into the habit, at which point I came to realise that its not a problem at all. OK, it takes a bit more typing, but so do long words- if that's the problem you may as well start up a campaign to eradicate long words
If it is such a big deal, then there's always the s/he option- that's only 2 letters extra.
You could even set up a computer function key to paste 'he or she' when pressed- that would actually save you a key stroke when compared to typing 'he'!
Why do it though, if 'he' isn't offensive?
Mainly because, IMO, language influences social attitudes in ways that often are not immediately apparent.
Many working class cultures traditionally used words like 'nigger', 'coon', 'paki', 'arse-bandit' (that one means gay by the way).
(I appreciate that these terms are in a different league to blanket use of 'he'- i'm using them here because I think that most people here would consider them grossly innapropriate- but would do so on the grounds of them being offensive. Whereas I'm trying to show that they actually have negative consequences regardless of them being offensive, and that blanket use of 'he' is a milder version of this effect).
Generally, many of the users of those phrases would not consider them racist or discriminatory- simply as labels to mark out who they're talking about.
In Rotherham for example, my friends would ask me if I wanted anything from the 'paki-shop'- they did not consider that to be offensive or racist (one of the group was actually asian, so how could they consider themselves racist?).
Leaving aside all questions of whether 'nigger', 'coon', 'paki', 'arse-bandit' etc are offensive or not- do you think that those terms are appropriate in a work-place, particularly in a work place where some of the workers are asian, or gay?
I think that, without even touching on the offense aspects, that habitual use of terms like that has detrimental effects on the way those groups are perceived and treated.
Getting back to 'he or she'- if, in a culture, it is habitual, when referring to an individual of random gender in writing, as 'he'- then that does have an effect, however subtle and insiduous, and that effect is to place more value on male gender than female.
This is why I personally use 'he or she' when referring to an individual of unspecified gender (arguably, its also grammatically correct in a way that 'he' isn't ie 'he' refers to a male, not to an individual who may be either male or female).
That's my personal choice- I've never suggested that everyone should do it; if you, having read my reasoning above, still want to persist with using 'he' to refer to individuals of unspecified gender, then you're welcome to do so.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
It doesn't matter if they're forced underground- like i say in the quote they're welcome to continue to hold racist beliefs- but, if they are underground, then the next generation of mainstream kids don't get to have it presented as part of 'normality' in their culture.
To make one thing I said a little clearer- by out and out racist stuff, i was referring more to habitual use of terms like 'nigger', 'paki' etc rather than people being deliberatly racist.
Concerning martyrdom- personally I think it's a bit unlikely- most people who are going to respect them are pretty much there already.
In the UK we have the BNP- despite the fact that they have made a big point of denying that they are any longer a racist party, they are still, to an extent, censored from getting out their message- how much harder would an outspokedly racist organisation find it to make an impact.
This is despite the fact that the BNP actually make some good arguments for their policies- in fact they are finding that good ground can be gained by denying racist intent and focusing on making reasoned arguments, many of which are based on trying to show that they are subject to prejudice.
Written by: spiralxWritten by: onewheeldave
I'd argue that the value of stopping people saying out-and-out racist stuff is that it has an effect on the rest of the population.
Children who grow up in a racist culture will be more prone to adopting those racist attitudes.
So, even if banning grossly innapropriate behaviour and speech doesn't directly stop the guilty individuals- there is still immense value in instigating those bans.
I totally disagree
If you ban this kind of speech then it doesn't suddenly stop people believing in it, it just forces them underground and makes them into marytrs.
On the other hand if they're allowed to say that kind of crap in public then it exposes them for the ignorant morons that they are, so people can see for themselves how nasty it is.
Just banning it isn't going to change anyone's beliefs, it takes a genuine long-term change in societal attitudes and not some kind of "hide the symptoms" quick fix.
It doesn't matter if they're forced underground- like i say in the quote they're welcome to continue to hold racist beliefs- but, if they are underground, then the next generation of mainstream kids don't get to have it presented as part of 'normality' in their culture.
To make one thing I said a little clearer- by out and out racist stuff, i was referring more to habitual use of terms like 'nigger', 'paki' etc rather than people being deliberatly racist.
Concerning martyrdom- personally I think it's a bit unlikely- most people who are going to respect them are pretty much there already.
In the UK we have the BNP- despite the fact that they have made a big point of denying that they are any longer a racist party, they are still, to an extent, censored from getting out their message- how much harder would an outspokedly racist organisation find it to make an impact.
This is despite the fact that the BNP actually make some good arguments for their policies- in fact they are finding that good ground can be gained by denying racist intent and focusing on making reasoned arguments, many of which are based on trying to show that they are subject to prejudice.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
NYC
9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA
9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA
Posted:
I've never seen anyone on HoP defending Hitler. Including in the thread you link to.
If someone killed your grandmother and I posted a photo of that person jokingly playing the banjo, you might be offended. Or you might not.
Hitler killed a lot of people's grandmothers. And I would certainly respect the fact that portraying him playing a banjo could be offensive to them.
Perhaps you need to understand history and politics before you can understand political correctness.
Written by: Tao Star
It gets to the point where threads like [Old link] have to have someone posting to defend Hitler!!!
I've never seen anyone on HoP defending Hitler. Including in the thread you link to.
If someone killed your grandmother and I posted a photo of that person jokingly playing the banjo, you might be offended. Or you might not.
Hitler killed a lot of people's grandmothers. And I would certainly respect the fact that portraying him playing a banjo could be offensive to them.
Perhaps you need to understand history and politics before you can understand political correctness.
Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]
BRONZE Member
1 + 1 = 3
3,540 posts
Location: Bristol UK
1 + 1 = 3
3,540 posts
Location: Bristol UK
Posted:
Soon they'll start banning the teachings of Latin languages in Schools... Or the french, spanish, and italian etc will have to come up with new words for everything masculine...
Another example of males being seen as the more important:
In Spanish:
'Ellos' means 'they', as in a group of boys.
'Ellas' means 'they', as in a group of girls.
Put one single male in that group of girls, no matter how many girls there are, you HAVE to use 'Ellos'. They'll ban that soon, with all the PC-ness.
Another thing I find, Is that, as a white male, I need to be extremely careful about what I say around black/coloured/ethnic/whatever the correct term is nowadays people, because that most natural of phrases can be seen as rascist. I will not be called a rascist. If I have a problem with someone, it's not because of the colour of their skin, but because I think they are a Twat.
Written by: onewheeldave
Traditionally males have been seen as more important; many feel that the disproportionate use of 'he' is a factor which supports that misconception. Put that way it makes perfect sense that someone should use 'he or she' rather than 'he'.
Soon they'll start banning the teachings of Latin languages in Schools... Or the french, spanish, and italian etc will have to come up with new words for everything masculine...
Another example of males being seen as the more important:
In Spanish:
'Ellos' means 'they', as in a group of boys.
'Ellas' means 'they', as in a group of girls.
Put one single male in that group of girls, no matter how many girls there are, you HAVE to use 'Ellos'. They'll ban that soon, with all the PC-ness.
Another thing I find, Is that, as a white male, I need to be extremely careful about what I say around black/coloured/ethnic/whatever the correct term is nowadays people, because that most natural of phrases can be seen as rascist. I will not be called a rascist. If I have a problem with someone, it's not because of the colour of their skin, but because I think they are a Twat.
Empty your mind. Be formless, Shapeless, like Water.
Put Water into a cup, it becomes the cup, put water into a bottle, it becomes the bottle, put water into a teapot, it becomes the teapot.
Water can flow, or it can Crash.
Be Water My Friend.
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
That's strange- I, also as a white male, feel no need whatsoever to be extremely careful about what I say around minority groups; I wonder what these 'most natural of phrases' could be that you are referring to? Perhaps you may want to give some examples so we can give you a bit of objective feedback.
As for the correct terms for minority groups, it's pretty straightforward- if they're black call them 'black', if they're Asian, call them 'Asian', if they're gay, call them 'gay'.
Avoid terms like 'nigger', 'paki' and 'arse-bandit' and you'll be fine.
Written by: Lecture_Theatre_C
Another thing I find, Is that, as a white male, I need to be extremely careful about what I say around black/coloured/ethnic/whatever the correct term is nowadays people, because that most natural of phrases can be seen as rascist. I will not be called a rascist. If I have a problem with someone, it's not because of the colour of their skin, but because I think they are a Twat.
That's strange- I, also as a white male, feel no need whatsoever to be extremely careful about what I say around minority groups; I wonder what these 'most natural of phrases' could be that you are referring to? Perhaps you may want to give some examples so we can give you a bit of objective feedback.
As for the correct terms for minority groups, it's pretty straightforward- if they're black call them 'black', if they're Asian, call them 'Asian', if they're gay, call them 'gay'.
Avoid terms like 'nigger', 'paki' and 'arse-bandit' and you'll be fine.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Posted:
But don't people find "Black" offensive? Shouldn't we use "Coloured"?
But don't people find "Black" offensive? Shouldn't we use "Coloured"?
After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
NYC
9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA
9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA
Posted:
Not unless it's 1950, Mississippi, and you're describing "folk my daugher ain't never gonna marry none of".
Have y'all ever met a black person? Or been to a Jewish temple? Maybe that would explain a lot.
As a lovely drunkey Scotsman once told me outside of a pub in Northern Scotland: "Oh.. Yer from New York City. You sure like your niggers out there huh?"
Probably thought politial correctness was a load of rubbish too.
Written by: Sethis
But don't people find "Black" offensive? Shouldn't we use "Coloured"?
Not unless it's 1950, Mississippi, and you're describing "folk my daugher ain't never gonna marry none of".Have y'all ever met a black person? Or been to a Jewish temple? Maybe that would explain a lot.
As a lovely drunkey Scotsman once told me outside of a pub in Northern Scotland: "Oh.. Yer from New York City. You sure like your niggers out there huh?"
Probably thought politial correctness was a load of rubbish too.
Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
Black people are black, in the same way that white people are white. Black people aren't coloured, 'coloured' would mean red. blue, pink etc- also 'coloured' in reference to ethnic minorities has a history of being used as derogatory term.
It's not generally offensive to call a white person 'white'; similarly, few will take offence at a black person being called 'black'- it is generally far preferable to 'coloured'.
This debate reminds me of a clip from a UK documentary in the late 60's, which had an interview, in which a very senior police officer, was defending the right of police constables to use the term 'black b*stard'.
Apparently, due to the fact that it was, in those times, in that area, an everyday term with, according to this officer, no racist connutations whatsoever; he thought it unreasonable that his men should be critisised for using it.
Of course, this was well before the days of pc, but, had the term been known, I'm sure he would have said that disallowing police officers from using the term 'black b*stard' was 'political correctness gone mad'.
Times change- in another 30 years, maybe some of the stuff that people are condemning here as 'pc gone mad', or as being 'killjoy', or as involving too much effort to implement; will possibly be looked on in a similar way to which we look at a clip of a police officer defending his right to use the term 'black b*stard'.
Written by: Sethis
But don't people find "Black" offensive? Shouldn't we use "Coloured"?
Black people are black, in the same way that white people are white. Black people aren't coloured, 'coloured' would mean red. blue, pink etc- also 'coloured' in reference to ethnic minorities has a history of being used as derogatory term.
It's not generally offensive to call a white person 'white'; similarly, few will take offence at a black person being called 'black'- it is generally far preferable to 'coloured'.
This debate reminds me of a clip from a UK documentary in the late 60's, which had an interview, in which a very senior police officer, was defending the right of police constables to use the term 'black b*stard'.
Apparently, due to the fact that it was, in those times, in that area, an everyday term with, according to this officer, no racist connutations whatsoever; he thought it unreasonable that his men should be critisised for using it.
Of course, this was well before the days of pc, but, had the term been known, I'm sure he would have said that disallowing police officers from using the term 'black b*stard' was 'political correctness gone mad'.
Times change- in another 30 years, maybe some of the stuff that people are condemning here as 'pc gone mad', or as being 'killjoy', or as involving too much effort to implement; will possibly be looked on in a similar way to which we look at a clip of a police officer defending his right to use the term 'black b*stard'.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
GOLD Member
Self-Flagellation Expert
3,414 posts
Location: Bogged at CG, Australia
Self-Flagellation Expert
3,414 posts
Location: Bogged at CG, Australia
Posted:
I guess that situation really depends on what you're using black for. If it's purely an adjective, then i can't honestly see too much of a problem. Same as NYC's example up there, drunkey Scotsman. I can't see any problems with that, especially if he was drunkey and scots at the time.
Could be a problem if drunken scot became a reference for all scots, but i dont see that happening.
I guess that situation really depends on what you're using black for. If it's purely an adjective, then i can't honestly see too much of a problem. Same as NYC's example up there, drunkey Scotsman. I can't see any problems with that, especially if he was drunkey and scots at the time.
Could be a problem if drunken scot became a reference for all scots, but i dont see that happening.
"beg beg grovel beg grovel"
"master"
--FSA
"There was an arse there, i couldn't help myself"
--Rougie
© 1998 - 2024 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com