Has political correctness actually gone mad?
- Thread starter Pogue Mahone
- Start date
I read a few replies to that tweet and it reminded me why I don’t use twitter.
Absolutely reprehensible
For me, the most interesting bit of this kerfuffle is why Sesame Street felt obliged to tweet that clarification?
Bert and Ernie are definitely gay though.
Yeah, I mean people will rightly call it a storm in a tea cup because, well, it is, but it doesn't exactly paint Sesame Street in the best light that they felt so uncomfortable about the prospect of two of their characters being written, or interpreted, as a gay couple that they needed to make a public statement denying it. It seems unlikely to me that they'd do the same if their writer and given an interview talking about a heterosexual relationship.
And anyway, Barthes would tell you that the author is dead. If you've written a gay couple which audiences interpret and understand as a gay couple, does it matter if you didn't mean to do it in the first place?
I thought this reply was on the numbers:
In response to this: “I created Bert,” says Frank Oz. “I know what and who he is.” And no, he isn’t gay", Danny John-Jules said this: "Imagine how many fathers say that about there sons every day ...."
In response to this: “I created Bert,” says Frank Oz. “I know what and who he is.” And no, he isn’t gay", Danny John-Jules said this: "Imagine how many fathers say that about there sons every day ...."
Imagine really caring about this. The world most be one shitty place if you do.
That is amazing. Is mother earth really a guy born in the wrong solar system, and is she flat chested, is that why the earth is flat? These are questions that soon demands to be answeredAgain, not sure if parody:
da feck is jazz hands?
jesus christ this is the top reply
Perfect reply.I see madness everywhere. In one side PC lunatics with their first world priorities. In the other side neo nazis trying to get away with neo nazi things by screaming "pc culture" when they are caught.
Can someone tell me why banning clapping is wrong ? We've all seen the Tonight Show With - insert annoying man in suit here - so we already know clapping is annoying, loud, smug and never done as a reaction to a well made point. Whats the problem.
I'm not sure the Tonight Show should be the universal barometer for how we judge human behaviours.
In answer to your question, though, banning clapping is wrong because... I mean, come on. It's just fecking clapping.
Fairly sure this has all happened before. I think there was a conference at another University a few years ago where someone got triggered by clapping and suggested jazz hands instead.
EDIT: here you go. I think this might have been discussed on the first few pages of this thread!
Yeah this is a case of PC gone mad.
I agree, they should also ban laughter, or at least, ban laughter for people who laugh in an annoying way or at inopportune times.
To be replaced by "jazz laughing", opening and closing your mouth in complete silence.
'Jazz chanting' has been a massive success at OT, so no reason why this wouldn't work.
Thinking clapping is irritating is fine...actually banning it in case it triggers anxiety is...yeah. Plenty of people clap for positive reasons.
Ah yeah we already know that.
what if it does trigger anxiety in some people? Do we ignore their problem in favour of the right for everyone else to clap, do we stop clapping or is there another solution.
We find out the underlying problem that causes the anxiety and try to solve that. Banning clapping is actually ignoring their problems, because you take away te impulse that triggers a deeper lying psycological problem. So actually, people that want to ban clapping are detrimental to our mental well being amd should be prosecuted.
Imo.
Yes, so let's throw our young into the path of mechanised death...again.
Wait so the alternative solution is to have a little break at the start to provide quick-fix psychological help?
Why does clapping trigger anxiety? That’s what has me confused here. And what proportion of attendees are affected to the extent that everyone else has to adjust their behaviour to accommodate them?
Liverpool are causing me anxiety this season … just saying
lots of things trigger anxiety, sudden loud noises being a common trigger
is there a minimum that has to be met?
If someone is genuinely anxious at the prospect of clapping to the point where they can't cope with it then it's fine for people to adapt their behaviour out of common decency to accommodate said person. Certainly I'd have no problem with doing so. I'm not really sure clapping's likely to trigger anxiety to a far greater extent than a whole myriad of normal social behaviours we partake in every day though, and for that reason I find a complete banning of it fairly absurd. I'm willing to be proven wrong on this one and if there's ample evidence which suggests it's something which genuinely causes great anxiety in people then I'll be more forgiving to the above move, but on the whole I don't think it's something that particularly affects most people, and while that's no reason not to accommodate the minority it does effect, a complete banning on something completely normal and benign is bizarre.
these rules tend to come in because someone there asked for it which usually means it's worse than the rest of it for that person, that's why they're so uncommon, it just so happens this one is being asked for by female students (who are taking down western civilisation with their muslim friends) so it's more newsworthy for certain outlets than say, steve in hull who can't be around things that smell like rosewater and is easily startled by outside noises for some unknown reason
I don't know mate, I'm trying to keep an open mind about it as clearly people have voiced an issue with it and mental health issues are poorly understood in society. Would 1 person be enough? I think we should make reasonable adjustments and I'd personally have no issue with not being able to clap, it's not a hobby of mine just a habit.
Clapping is by and large overused and obnoxious in any public setting.
Banning it outright seems too hasty though. Behaviours like this are best discouraged over time.
Banning it outright seems too hasty though. Behaviours like this are best discouraged over time.
Isn't it arguable that if someone has an issue with clapping then it'd be better for that to be dealt with at a specific meeting/club they're attending, instead of a complete ban on it across the university? If it is a genuine problem then I don't want to belittle it but it's a problem I'd argue is so benign and (probably) rare that a complete ban may be a bit too much. Indeed I doubt it'd rank as any worse than a whole myriad of social activities in which we partake every day.
I also think there's got to be a distinction made between things which genuinely trigger proper anxiety and things we find slightly uncomfortable. 'Trigger warnings' were something maligned by the right but there are a lot of cases when they're undoubtedly necessary for people who suffer from trauma and PTSD after certain events. There's a difference between that and something I may find slightly uncomfortable. I don't like the sound of a chair screeching when being dragged across the room but I wouldn't class it as something that triggers anxiety in me.
if we give into these people, what comes next? banning loyalty oaths to the leader of our nation state? telling me I cant go to youth soccer matches and heckle the players? putting an attendant in each bathroom to make people wash their hands?