Has political correctness actually gone mad?

KirkDuyt said:
I love this. Outrage over outrage causing outrage. I bet the people who complain about it are just trolling society. As if anyone actually thinks it's racist.

Ah well, I suppose many nutcases actually do think that.
Click to expand...
This is what I don't get. No person of sane mind could seriously be offended by that, so it seems weird that they'd decide to pander to them anyway. I bet if Waitrose put out a tweet saying "actually, you know what? Go feck yourselves" they'd get a lot more support :lol:
 
KirkDuyt said:
They're a less efficient means to transport food from your plate to your mouth. Much like a square wheel being a less efficient means to move a vehicle along a road.

Sillyness aside though, you disagree that cutlery is more efficient, I'd love to hear some examples to prove me wrong. I'll even admit to it if you do :)
Click to expand...

Most Asian dishes the chef already used knives to cut the food while cooking so a knife is not necesaary for the end user to eat. In that sense chopsticks are much more efficient due to the type of cuisine.
 
decorativeed said:
I'm convinced companies do this on purpose, knowing a backlash/reaction will spread their campaign much further than any regular advertising would do. The chances of me knowing that BK are doing a Vietnamese burger today were minimal. Now I'm aware of it because of the reaction. It's good for them, as its harmless enough 'bad' publicity, not something that is going to lose them any customers, as people who are inclined to get offended by it probably don't eat at places like BK or McDs anyway.
Click to expand...

I’m coming to the same conclusion. Deliberately martyring yourself on the altar of political correctness probably counts as smart marketing these days.
 
Wibble said:
I think the destruction of religion in the developed world totally passed me by.
Click to expand...
People in industrial countries are significantly less religious now than they were 30-40 years ago (before the internet). That’s just a fact.

We can theorize all we want about why this is. I suspect that it’s a lot harder to brainwash people if everyone is connected.
 
KirkDuyt said:
Speaking of chopsticks, why cant chopsticks users just admit that cutlery is a superior tool and switch over. I mean, it's a bit like a pre-wheel car manufacturer insisting on keeping the design with square blocks instead of wheels. Swing and a miss, just give up.
Click to expand...
you know people who use chopsticks also use other things to eat food right, you're not going to find someone dipping a thin stick into a broth, they also have forks and sporks and all that shit but they like you use a 2 thousand year old design to eat your food because it's what you're used to, so do they
 
Last edited:
Silva said:
you know people who use chopsticks also use other things to eat food right, you're not going to find someone dipping a thin stick into a broth, they also have forks and sporks and all that shit but they like you use a 2 thousand year old design to eat your food because it's what you're used to, so do they
Click to expand...
Dont get me started on sporks. That's just lazy language building. Cant we make up a new word for that?
 
Infordin said:
People in industrial countries are significantly less religious now than they were 30-40 years ago (before the internet). That’s just a fact.

We can theorize all we want about why this is. I suspect that it’s a lot harder to brainwash people if everyone is connected.
Click to expand...
What you're saying makes no sense. You think it's not just as easy to brainwash using the internet? Where the feck have you been?
 
afrocentricity said:
What you're saying makes no sense. You think it's not just as easy to brainwash using the internet? Where the feck have you been?
Click to expand...
Was just gonna say, if anything it's become easier. People are still morons and it's easier than ever to reach them en masse
 
Infordin said:
People in industrial countries are significantly less religious now than they were 30-40 years ago (before the internet). That’s just a fact.

We can theorize all we want about why this is. I suspect that it’s a lot harder to brainwash people if everyone is connected.
Click to expand...
What about the marked rise in antivaxers, conspiracy loons and idiots who think feminism is evil? All these have happened after the internet became something everyone had access to.
 
Halftrack said:
What about the marked rise in antivaxers, conspiracy loons and idiots who think feminism is evil? All these have happened after the internet became something everyone had access to.
Click to expand...

I'm loathe to defend that guy, but I wouldn't say there's been an increase in conspiracy loons and anti-feminists (despite all evidence to the contrary in this thread). Those have always existed at fairly critical levels, it's just that now we're more aware of them. Antivaxxers I'll give you, though. You can easily see the effect the rise of that particular nonsense has had simply by looking at the numbers. Andrew Wakefield is responsible for a tremendous amount of suffering, the evil and incompetent twat.
 
niMic said:
I'm loathe to defend that guy, but I wouldn't say there's been an increase in conspiracy loons and anti-feminists (despite all evidence to the contrary in this thread). Those have always existed at fairly critical levels, it's just that now we're more aware of them. Antivaxxers I'll give you, though. You can easily see the effect the rise of that particular nonsense has had simply by looking at the numbers. Andrew Wakefield is responsible for a tremendous amount of suffering, the evil and incompetent twat.
Click to expand...
You're right, conspiracy theorists probably haven't become more numerous as such, just more visible. On the other hand, I do feel that those who are inclined to believe conspiracies now believe in all of them (or, a lot of them at least), whereas they (in the times before the internet) might only have dabbled in a couple.

In any case, there certainly hasn't been a drop in the number of people believing in conspiracies, even the easily debunked ones. I'm fairly sure there are, as @Adebesi pointed out, more flat-earthers now than there were 20 years ago, despite there being ample unbiased evidence that they're wrong. And if you try to tell some moron who thinks "third wave feminism" is a mental illness what feminism actually is, he'll ignore it because it doesn't confirm his bias (only academics and weirdos bother referring to modern feminism as third wave, and the weirdos only do it to be able to pretend that they would have been fine with the second wave feminists, even though they'd likely hate them just as much, because they hate that women have gotten all uppity and started demanding things).

I'm rambling, but my point was just that there's plenty of evidence that points to his "internet killed religion because people can't deny facts" being wrong. Even his own posts on feminism proves just how wrong he is. People are exceptionally willing to ignore any facts or truths that go against what they believe. Which you already knew, because you've seen his posts to (and because you're evidently in possession of the ability to think critically and logically).
 
That’s mental, that’s an outrage!!
He was originally a fan of both Manchester United and Fulham, but chose his current allegiance in 2006 when both teams were in the Premier League.
Click to expand...

Actually, I can see where they’re coming from.
 
Mentalists.

If anyone saw COYW on a number plate and didn't know what it was referring to, they wouldn't know it meant the words 'Come On You Whites' so there could be no misunderstanding that it was about race or skin colour.

The only way you know it means come on you whites is if you already know the phrase and then you'd also know it was about Fulham, or at the very least some other team that plays in white.

I've never seen that particular iniitialism before. COYS for Spurs, yes but I probably wouldn't look at a number plate with COYW and think it meant Come on you whites or any other word beginning with 'w'. If I did try to guess what it meant I'd think it was someone's initials, someone had the last name McCoy or that it was something to do with Colorado as I think CO is the two-letter shortened name for that state. And like I said, if I did know what it meant I'd then know it was about sport. Don't see anyone could know or guess what it was short for and then go on to think it was about racial cheerleading.
 
First time I've ever heard Fulham be referred to as the "whites" so fair enough I'd say.
 
niMic said:
I'm loathe to defend that guy, but I wouldn't say there's been an increase in conspiracy loons and anti-feminists (despite all evidence to the contrary in this thread). Those have always existed at fairly critical levels, it's just that now we're more aware of them. Antivaxxers I'll give you, though. You can easily see the effect the rise of that particular nonsense has had simply by looking at the numbers. Andrew Wakefield is responsible for a tremendous amount of suffering, the evil and incompetent twat.
Click to expand...

The influence of antivax mentalists has specific, measurable effects i.e. disease epidemics. The influence of different types of conspiracy loons is obviously less measurable but we all know they’re spreading their messages like wildfire on social media. Surely measles epidemics are a pretty useful proxy marker for the effects of online idiocy in general?
 
Pogue Mahone said:
The influence of antivax mentalists has specific, measurable effects i.e. disease epidemics. The influence of different types of conspiracy loons is obviously less measurable but we all know they’re spreading their messages like wildfire on social media. Surely measles epidemics are a pretty useful proxy marker for the effects of online idiocy in general?
Click to expand...

Oh I agree, but there are also many examples of similar events that didn't need the internet to flourish. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion didn't need the internet, and they convinced everyone from common peasants to Henry Ford, and led to pogroms. in Eastern Europe. Holocaust denial didn't need the internet, nor did the Lost Cause or the myth of the Clean Wehrmacht. Admittedly all of those (even the Protocols) are having a resurgence in the public space because of the internet, but there's no reason to assume those beliefs weren't there already. Neo-Nazism was probably a much more acute issue in the 80s and 90s than they are now, it's just that they're much easier to spot today. What the internet does do, however, is make it easier for those people to organize and act.

I don't want to make it seem like I am disagreeing with the idea that the internet is increasingly used to radicalize (particularly into radical Islam and the far right), I just tend to think the internet has also done a lot of good. I'm a teacher, and I get the distinct impression that my dad, who is in his early 60s, is a lot more susceptible to believing what he's told on the internet than my students are. And he's been around and extensively used computers and the internet for at least twenty years. It's just that unlike the current generation (and to a certain degree my generation as well), he didn't grow up with it.
 
niMic said:
Oh I agree, but there are also many examples of similar events that didn't need the internet to flourish. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion didn't need the internet, and they convinced everyone from common peasants to Henry Ford, and led to pogroms. in Eastern Europe. Holocaust denial didn't need the internet, nor did the Lost Cause or the myth of the Clean Wehrmacht. Admittedly all of those (even the Protocols) are having a resurgence in the public space because of the internet, but there's no reason to assume those beliefs weren't there already. Neo-Nazism was probably a much more acute issue in the 80s and 90s than they are now, it's just that they're much easier to spot today. What the internet does do, however, is make it easier for those people to organize and act.

I don't want to make it seem like I am disagreeing with the idea that the internet is increasingly used to radicalize (particularly into radical Islam and the far right), I just tend to think the internet has also done a lot of good. I'm a teacher, and I get the distinct impression that my dad, who is in his early 60s, is a lot more susceptible to believing what he's told on the internet than my students are. And he's been around and extensively used computers and the internet for at least twenty years. It's just that unlike the current generation (and to a certain degree my generation as well), he didn't grow up with it.
Click to expand...

That’s an interesting point about the older generation(s) being more susceptible to online bollox than the younger, more internet savvy gen Y and Zers. Fits with the Trump/Brexit voting demographics.
 
JP and Rubin will sooon be leading the opposition
Senate bills threaten to chill educator speech


Sen. Pat Fallon (R-Prosper) filed Senate Bill (SB) 1569, which would dramatically expand the legal definition of electioneering solely as it applies to educators.

Electioneering is currently defined as advocating for or against a candidate, political party, or ballot measure. For example: A communication created on school district time or using school district money in support of Proposition X or Candidate Y clearly constitutes electioneering and an unlawful use of public resources. As filed, SB 1569 would include activity that advocates for or against “a political philosophy” or “a matter of public interest.” Neither term is defined in law or in Sen. Fallon’s bill, and ATPE contends that each phrase is subject to widely varying interpretation. For example, extolling the virtues of American democracy and our free enterprise system could be considered advocating for a “political philosophy” under this bill – despite the fact that both are required elements of Texas public schools’ curriculum. Likewise, a sign on a school bulletin board promoting a food drive for Hurricane Harvey victims could easily be construed as advocating for “a matter of public interest” if SB 1569 were to be enacted.

Perhaps even more troubling, SB 1569 would expand the definition of “political advertising” to include any political communication “directed to an individual person or multiple persons through any form of communication (emphasis added).” This could treat private conversations between co-workers as political advertising and subject to criminal penalties. As a whole, SB 1569 would impose a separate set of restrictions on the speech of public school employees that is far more expansive than restrictions imposed upon any other category of public employees.
Click to expand...
https://www.teachthevote.org/news/2019/04/02/senate-bills-threaten-to-chill-educator-speech/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.