Has political correctness actually gone mad?
- Thread starter Pogue Mahone
- Start date
what a gobshiteI really struggled with that tweet.
As we all know, YouTube is the CBC's primary platform.
Geordie accused of ‘cultural appropriation’ after wearing jacket during night out
https://rochdaleherald.co.uk/2018/02/23/geordie-accused-cultural-appropriation-wearing-jacket-night/
https://rochdaleherald.co.uk/2018/02/23/geordie-accused-cultural-appropriation-wearing-jacket-night/
It's satire, right, right?
Also linked to this: https://rochdaleherald.co.uk/2017/08/02/39-bus-seats-arrested-in-counter-terrorism-operation/
I vaguely remember a story where someone photographed empty bus seats to document the Muslim invasion.
Also linked to this: https://rochdaleherald.co.uk/2017/08/02/39-bus-seats-arrested-in-counter-terrorism-operation/
I vaguely remember a story where someone photographed empty bus seats to document the Muslim invasion.
Was in Norway.https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp....istaken-burqas-anti-immigrant-group-norwegian
Now we're not allowed to slag off our players to let off steam - on a fan forum. It's political correctness gone mad. Get Milo in here, this is the final straw for me.
People on twitter getting offended by Cancer Uk's "fat shaming" Obesity causes cancer campaign.
No white text? I have no problem grouping the ramblings of Milo and these knee-jerk verbal litterbugs together, so if you’re sincere then go right ahead and join causes with that wanker
THIS on the other hand is well-suited for this thread. Wtf?!
http://www.newsweek.com/kansas-gops-vote-against-transgender-people-part-worrying-trend-821087
Remember, SJWs are a major menace to society screaming about nonexistent problems.
Remember, SJWs are a major menace to society screaming about nonexistent problems.
Had this weird little combo of diversity presentations at work last night. Was very peculiar tbh. My department and industry as a whole is very blue collar and male dominated (fyi)
A lady gave a presentation on mental health discussing her own anxiety which went down really well and another guy told us he was gay and how it was difficult for him to talk about it etc okay fair enough but this other guy was telling us about gender equality and how because our city is 50/50 male and female then so should our company and I just can't get my head around how ridiculous that is. Women just aren't interested in this field, the few who are get fast track treatment too it literally couldn't be any better for them and yet still most aren't interested.
This guy was a total bitch too he kept giving bitchy stares into the crowd if someone talked or made a noise. You could tell he resented everyone there, and it was funny to hear the shit he was saying and knowing what the 100 or so people there were mostly thinking. I find it disturbing that an unskilled idealogical cretin like him can be given employable positions at large companies just to spread his bs and try to socially engineer everything against what is natural.
A lady gave a presentation on mental health discussing her own anxiety which went down really well and another guy told us he was gay and how it was difficult for him to talk about it etc okay fair enough but this other guy was telling us about gender equality and how because our city is 50/50 male and female then so should our company and I just can't get my head around how ridiculous that is. Women just aren't interested in this field, the few who are get fast track treatment too it literally couldn't be any better for them and yet still most aren't interested.
This guy was a total bitch too he kept giving bitchy stares into the crowd if someone talked or made a noise. You could tell he resented everyone there, and it was funny to hear the shit he was saying and knowing what the 100 or so people there were mostly thinking. I find it disturbing that an unskilled idealogical cretin like him can be given employable positions at large companies just to spread his bs and try to socially engineer everything against what is natural.
We are back to conflating political correctness with health and safety. Stewart Lee would be proud.
Albert Heijn, Hollands biggest supermarket brand has banned a childrens football themed game because the cover said; "for up to four boys", which was deemed sexist.
Also one of the answers to the question: what don't you ever want to see? A: crying girls, was deemed over the top.
Feck sake.
Also one of the answers to the question: what don't you ever want to see? A: crying girls, was deemed over the top.
Feck sake.
No need to ban it but it definitely should be changed to "four players" rather than boys, as yes, that is sexist imho.
The state of that woman at the end
Boys and girls thinking the other sex has cooties until the age of 10 is fine. Why is it a bad thing that boys tend to like football more than girls? Everone's always talking about wanting everyone to be the same and unisex and what not. Boys and girls aren't the same and that's fine. One is not better than the other, but they're definitely not identical. Why is that a bad thing? I want to hold open the door for my wife and I want to pay for dinner on the first date. I give her my coat when it's cold. That's completely sexist as well, but who cares.
That's not sexist, that's called chivalry.
Boys and girls aren't the same, neither are all boys the same, neither are all girls the same.
It's the moment when you start restricting what others are able to do based on their gender that it becomes a problem, imo.
I have no problem with toys for girls and toys for boys being different - but you shouldn't tell boys that they aren't allowed to play with dolls, and girls aren't allowed to play with hot wheels or whatever, that's sexist.
Everyone isn't wanting everyone to be the same and unisex, people just want others to be able to have the same access to do things that they want to do, that's all.
That's exactly my point. For instance women getting paid less for the same job, or being passed over for jobs altogether because they "aren't a good fit for the company's culture" is ridiculous and something that should be fought against at every turn.
However, some silly game aimed at boys over girls and other games doing this vice versa are harmless. I used to be absolutely sure all girls had cooties, but then I grew up. It's not these games that are at fault, it's shitty parents with shitty values who raise their children to be the same shitty bigoted people they are.
And on the subject of Chivalry, doesn't that kind of originate with the stigma that men are stronger and are supposed to take care of their women, because they need their protection? I agree chivalry is great and should definitely not die, it's just another example of not all differences between sexes being a bad thing.
@vi1lain Isnt chivalry a bit sexist? I know a few women who (I think) would find it extremely patronising if a man wanted to pay for their dinner or offered them their coat. Im sure I read an article in The Guardian at some point about benevolent or benign sexism and how its just as bad as any other form of sexism.
When you have daughters you realise how much society, TV, games, expectations etc tries to model young girls behaviour, discourage them from 'male roles' and encourage 'female roles'
Playing football isn't something young girls should be discouraged from. In America many girls play it because it's seen as 'feminine' as opposed to other sports.
As for this particular case I'd be in favour of a small label stating 'suitable for 4 children' being used instead of throwing all the toys away, which would be a waste
I think what these people complaining don't realise is that they should see this from a child's perspective. Up to age ten boys and girls tend to think the other sex is "stupid" and "eeeeeeeeew" and there's nothing wrong with that. Eventually you discover that the other sex is actually very interesting (or not). That's part of growing up. And some people fail to do so and grow up to be sexist bigots. That's not because of a children's game, that's because of their parents. Fact is, there are a lot of ignorant people in the world. And there lies the problem. A label on a game changes absolutely nothing in favour of women. It's just ammo for misogynists to complain about PC going mad.
Also, in Holland playing football is encouraged for all sexes, ages, colours etc etc. Our women's team even won the Euro's
The time that football is only for boys is long gone here. Though I guess we score quite well in the equal right department.Ultimately my personal view on it is that the outrage towards political correctness fuels a lot of these "stories" being printed.
A supermarket in Holland has had some opposition to one game that they stock, so? There will be some opposition to almost anything an organisation does - but printing it in newspapers/online will fuel a lot more people who are fed up political correctness and are baited into outrage thinking that the whole world is changing.
The 'journalist' will get a lot more attention by dressing this up to rile up the Anti-PC squad, which in turn will mean more revenue for the company.
If people stopped feeding these types of articles then none of us would even be aware of it, because honestly who cares.
I used to play with nerf guns and action man dolls and hot wheels etc and the box would always say specifically that it was for boys - did that stop me? Of course not.
There is a wider discussion to be had around social constructs when it comes to gender stereotypes of course, but this isn't that.
On the topic of Chivalry, for you and @Adebesi - this comes down to personal preference.
Some girls like a guy who will open the door for them, some girls don't care, some will only accept a guy who does all the chivalrous things for them, some will never allow a guy to do chivalrous things for them.
There isn't a blanket rule that can be applied, we are all individual with different preferences and needs and such.
If you are doing things like holding a door open and paying for the bill then I would say you should question why you feel the need to do that, i've been with guys who do it as a form to exert their masculinity on a relationship and establish that they are the alpha - that's where the lines are blurred when it comes to sexism imo, it can become patronising and dehumanising depending on the tone and context its done in.
If you are doing these things because you like the girl, and you want to be a gentleman then that's the best way - but don't let it stop at only doing acts historically attributed to males only - offer to cook occasionally, or clean or something.
If you aren't open to doing things that are historically assigned for females to do as part of your show of chivalry, then I would question your motives for being chivalrous in the first place. If a show of chivalry is an act, deed or service of being a gentleman, then these things fall into that category too, right?
But that's just me, not all women are the same.
I dont know whether my experience is representative but for my daughter it was really, really sudden when she started at school. So I think while all the factors you mention are all significant in themselves, peer pressure is the biggest one. My daughter was all about kicking a ball around with me (much more so than her older brother) and playing with trains. She was obsessed with Pixar films like Toy Story and Cars, and refused to wear dresses or skirts - she was happiest in trousers and a Lightning McQueen t shirt. Then she started nursery and almost overnight was all about pink pink pink and Disney princesses.
I personally do it, because I like to take care of her. Not because she really needs it, but just to show her my affection I suppose. Never really though about it that way to be honest . And yes I also cook, and fold laundry. With varying degrees of success, mind you.
You make a very valid point about journalists specifically digging this stuff up just to rile people up, because as I also mentioned in a different post, these type of stories are just ammo for the anti PC-crowd.
Anywho, great post, I agree with all parts.
Yeah I agree too. With both of you. I try to be chivalrous. But also do a share of housework, a little bit less than half of the cooking and a little bit more than half of the childcare.
Wonderful, I'm sure your girlfriend appreciates the hell out of you, even when you aren't so successful
Of course the creature was a victim - the folly of Man arrogantly & heartlessly playing God (surely a metaphor for God abandoning his 'children' after satisfying His curiosity)', just as Victor neglected his creation) is the major theme of the bloody novel. Sheesh...
The creature's murders are Shelley's way of showing the disastrous effect on social harmony resulting from the previously-mentioned errors of heart and mind. Parklife.
The creature's murders are Shelley's way of showing the disastrous effect on social harmony resulting from the previously-mentioned errors of heart and mind. Parklife.
Last edited:
You could make the same argument for many of the mass murderers that have existed throughout history. Let down/discarded by society, their parents, friends etc, so they vent their anger & frustrations via violence. Frankenstein was in no way perfect, but neither is man.........or should that be people ?
20% of the proceeds for Pink IPA going towards equal pay charities. Is this bad?
Well yeah. That's kind of the other face of the story. Does man create its own monsters.
Frankenstein goes a step farther, because we're looking at an adult new born, who can't talk or be reasoned with in an adult way but who has strength and emotions that he can't control.
The current mindset is that your intentions don't matter, only the actions and your words.
Reminds me of one of the events that led to Gamergate. An organisation offered to fund female developers in making small indie games, any profits go to charity and if the developer finds alternate funding they weren't bound to stick with them, so they can go make a profit elsewhere. It wasn't considered good enough.
On the game, it should say for up to 4 players. Not a big deal, but one of those little messages we can give kids about boundaries. Most players might be boys, and some of them they might not want little girls to play, but the label shouldn't tell the little girl that she's odd for wanting to.
Chivalry? Personally I see it in much the same terms as random acts of kindness. Intent can make it feel demeaning, if it's highlighting that you're different to the others going to an event or a meeting - which is probably why some women actually say it's unwelcome or patronising.
In other situations, it should just feel like a perfectly natural example of people being nice to each other, in whatever way they feel comfortable doing.
Did I request thee, Maker, from my clay
To mould me man? Did I solicit thee
From darkness to promote me?
Many times I considered Satan as the fitter emblem of my condition.
She was a true poet of the monster's party and knew it.
To mould me man? Did I solicit thee
From darkness to promote me?
Many times I considered Satan as the fitter emblem of my condition.
She was a true poet of the monster's party and knew it.
Last edited:
I'm bored... So I'm going to patronise you all with a load of shit I imagine many of you already know, with a healthy bit of propaganda of course (and far too many brackets).
So, I'm increasingly thinking this thread title makes us look rather 'out of touch' in this discussion.
As far as I can tell most of the 'cool kids' in the English speaking internet world talk about this stuff as 'SJW' vs. 'anti-SJW'. 'SJW' standing for 'social justice warrior' - a term originally invented as a derogatory way to describe determined proponents of 'socially progressive' viewpoints.
So, the main instances of these 'SJW' views at present being their support for third wave feminism, LGBTQI+ rights (I'm gonna be unusually helpful here and point out the 'Q' stands for 'queer' and a google search for 'genderqueer' would provide you with enough to understand what's being referred to and the 'I' stands for intersex and, again, if unfamiliar, the same strategy will work) the Black Lives Matter movement, an opposition to apportioning blame for Islamic terrorist attacks to Muslims as a whole and an opposition to what they view as 'hate speech'.
Now with some folks concerned by the spread of this 'SJW' movement - that they sometimes refer to as 'the regressive left' - we have the 'anti-SJW' lot. Many have concerns that feminism has gone too far and has become an attack on men/masculinity, a feeling that heterosexuality and being cis-gender (just means feeling comfortable with the gender the bits between your legs correspond to - I'll save you the google this time) is seen as 'lesser', a belief that the Black Lives Matter movement and the likes are unnecessary and racially divisive, a belief that Islamic terrorist attacks show us that Islam itself is inherently dangerous and needs to be curtailed and a belief that 'freedom of speech' is under threat.
Obviously neither of these two groups have a unifying set of goals or concerns but those are the main points I see brought up and debated. Some will subscribe to most of the views of one side and some all of them. The rest I wouldn't personally put in those groups.
Now, I'm reasonably confident that the above descriptions are largely justifiable - so I'm going to reward myself for said self-declared accuracy and even-handedness by waffling in a baseless manner hereafter.
I feel I'm seeing these groups becoming increasingly 'a thing'. People are becoming more comfortable defining themselves as in either camp and as a result pressure, either conscious or unconscious, is being placed on folk to 'pick a side'. I could link you to a Barrack Obama speech, appealing to his 'rainbow coalition' as I could find Donald Trump tweets - well you can find a Trump tweet for everything but I doubt anyone's going to argue that the man hasn't aimed to appeal to the majority of the concerns I suggested make up the stereotypical 'anti-SJW' take on things. Jeremy Corbyn, and even more so his youth support, are unashamedly 'SJW'. This isn't just a fringe debate. It's a fringe debate that is seen as influential in electoral success.
As an unashamed SJW, myself, I don't know how it feels for the other side. I don't know how it feels for those who don't fit in to either category but do care enough to educate themselves on the issues debated. I don't personally see this polarisation as a bad thing.
I want people to pick a side as to me it feels like a battle for understanding those around us versus fearing/hating them. I want a more tolerant world and I believe the causes listed can lead us towards such and, above all, I want to be given a column in The Guardian to moan about sexism in Kinder Eggs.
TL;DR - Put four ounces of flour, two eggs, two hundred millilitres of milk, 1 table spoon of oil and a pinch of salt into a bowl or large jug, then whisk to a smooth batter.
So, I'm increasingly thinking this thread title makes us look rather 'out of touch' in this discussion.
As far as I can tell most of the 'cool kids' in the English speaking internet world talk about this stuff as 'SJW' vs. 'anti-SJW'. 'SJW' standing for 'social justice warrior' - a term originally invented as a derogatory way to describe determined proponents of 'socially progressive' viewpoints.
So, the main instances of these 'SJW' views at present being their support for third wave feminism, LGBTQI+ rights (I'm gonna be unusually helpful here and point out the 'Q' stands for 'queer' and a google search for 'genderqueer' would provide you with enough to understand what's being referred to and the 'I' stands for intersex and, again, if unfamiliar, the same strategy will work) the Black Lives Matter movement, an opposition to apportioning blame for Islamic terrorist attacks to Muslims as a whole and an opposition to what they view as 'hate speech'.
Now with some folks concerned by the spread of this 'SJW' movement - that they sometimes refer to as 'the regressive left' - we have the 'anti-SJW' lot. Many have concerns that feminism has gone too far and has become an attack on men/masculinity, a feeling that heterosexuality and being cis-gender (just means feeling comfortable with the gender the bits between your legs correspond to - I'll save you the google this time) is seen as 'lesser', a belief that the Black Lives Matter movement and the likes are unnecessary and racially divisive, a belief that Islamic terrorist attacks show us that Islam itself is inherently dangerous and needs to be curtailed and a belief that 'freedom of speech' is under threat.
Obviously neither of these two groups have a unifying set of goals or concerns but those are the main points I see brought up and debated. Some will subscribe to most of the views of one side and some all of them. The rest I wouldn't personally put in those groups.
Now, I'm reasonably confident that the above descriptions are largely justifiable - so I'm going to reward myself for said self-declared accuracy and even-handedness by waffling in a baseless manner hereafter.
I feel I'm seeing these groups becoming increasingly 'a thing'. People are becoming more comfortable defining themselves as in either camp and as a result pressure, either conscious or unconscious, is being placed on folk to 'pick a side'. I could link you to a Barrack Obama speech, appealing to his 'rainbow coalition' as I could find Donald Trump tweets - well you can find a Trump tweet for everything but I doubt anyone's going to argue that the man hasn't aimed to appeal to the majority of the concerns I suggested make up the stereotypical 'anti-SJW' take on things. Jeremy Corbyn, and even more so his youth support, are unashamedly 'SJW'. This isn't just a fringe debate. It's a fringe debate that is seen as influential in electoral success.
As an unashamed SJW, myself, I don't know how it feels for the other side. I don't know how it feels for those who don't fit in to either category but do care enough to educate themselves on the issues debated. I don't personally see this polarisation as a bad thing.
I want people to pick a side as to me it feels like a battle for understanding those around us versus fearing/hating them. I want a more tolerant world and I believe the causes listed can lead us towards such and, above all, I want to be given a column in The Guardian to moan about sexism in Kinder Eggs.
TL;DR - Put four ounces of flour, two eggs, two hundred millilitres of milk, 1 table spoon of oil and a pinch of salt into a bowl or large jug, then whisk to a smooth batter.