Has political correctness actually gone mad?

VeevaVee said:
How so?
And if tampons are as necessary as razors (I guess you already know about that whole thing, and they are), then is someone going to stand up for all the lads starting shaving at that age (which also wouldn't make much sense)?

Neither of these things have anything to do with preventing teen pregnancy for both parties though. It's pretty obvious why the government/an organisation would pay to help with that, but not with the other things.
Click to expand...
Well, there's certainly a difference, but I'm just not sure it's an idiotic point on her behalf. Tampons and the like are essential for a woman's hygiene from a relatively young age. I really don't think razors are a good analogous thing for blokes - for one thing women use them as well, for another it doesn't have quite the same consequences if you fail to use one. Whilst yeah, overall there's decent reasoning behind only condoms being given out, I can also understand a woman's annoyance that her gender means that she has to buy specific sanitary products for the next few decades.
 
Ubik said:
Well, there's certainly a difference, but I'm just not sure it's an idiotic point on her behalf. Tampons and the like are essential for a woman's hygiene from a relatively young age. I really don't think razors are a good analogous thing for blokes - for one thing women use them as well, for another it doesn't have quite the same consequences if you fail to use one. Whilst yeah, overall there's decent reasoning behind only condoms being given out, I can also understand a woman's annoyance that her gender means that she has to buy specific sanitary products for the next few decades.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree that tampons are more important than razors. I only used that example because of the recent thing about those.

I don't think it's up to the government to hand either of these out though, whereas I can see the benefit of free condoms for all parties (girl, boy, government, edit: and potentially the child).
 
LennonNL said:
People saying that the new Bob Marley filter on snapchat is racist and "the digital version of blackface"... I just can't understand it. Why do people look so hard for things to label racist?

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/technol...in-hot-water-over-blackface-filter?CMP=twt_gu
Click to expand...
Look at the people 'quoted' in the article, none of whom have even 10 re-tweets. Articles on 'PC culture' obviously sell, and the papers look for every opportunity possible to exploit this for clicks. There's no story here, at all.
 
ThierryHenry said:
Look at the people 'quoted' in the article, none of whom have even 10 re-tweets. Articles on 'PC culture' obviously sell, and the papers look for every opportunity possible to exploit this for clicks. There's no story here, at all.
Click to expand...
"Has the obsession with 'political correctness gone mad' actually gone mad?"
 
LawCharltonBest said:
People are offended by everything now. You can't even say "gay"
Click to expand...

Went to school with a guy whose last name was Gay, of course we all just called him Gay, because calling him Ben would have been wrong (especially since his name was not Ben). A day would not go buy with hearing someone yelling to get his attention "Hey You. Gay" or "Hey Gay" or "Look it's Gay" and many other not at all clever plays on his last name. He played on our schools basketball team and of course we could not resist the occasional chant of "LET'S GO GAY" or if he made a real good play or a particularly bad one, "Wow, that's Gay!"

He did not mind, would even play along, for instance whenever a substitute teacher was on duty and would do roll call for the class, he/she would get to our friend and call his name. "I'm Gay" would be his reply.

His first name was actually Allen. So many a school computer print out would just show each student's first initial and last name. So he often was simply listed on school records as A. Gay.

We would probably all get kicked out of school these days.

Still it could have been worse our principal's last name was Horr. His son, Alan, would show up as A. Horr. His daughter was never, ever called by her first name always just Horr.
 
ThierryHenry said:
Look at the people 'quoted' in the article, none of whom have even 10 re-tweets. Articles on 'PC culture' obviously sell, and the papers look for every opportunity possible to exploit this for clicks. There's no story here, at all.
Click to expand...
But there's still people saying it's racist, it doesn't matter how much support they have on Twitter.
 
LennonNL said:
But there's still people saying it's racist, it doesn't matter how much support they have on Twitter.
Click to expand...
It's not news worthy that three weirdos on Twitter have said something silly, and it's definitely not evidence of 'political correctness gone mad'. Clickbait journalism 'gone mad' is a different story entirely...
 
Raoul said:
Probably because it has historically been used as an epithet to mock the oddness of homosexuality, which is widely considered as wrong today.
Click to expand...

You need to make a shift away from their origins and not just try to re-brand them. Political Correctness is just a PR exercise that gives the politicians an easy excuse to make out as if they've made something different.
 
George Carlin said:
“Political correctness is America's newest form of intolerance, and it is especially pernicious because it comes disguised as tolerance. It presents itself as fairness, yet attempts to restrict and control people's language with strict codes and rigid rules. I'm not sure that's the way to fight discrimination. I'm not sure silencing people or forcing them to alter their speech is the best method for solving problems that go much deeper than speech.
Click to expand...
 
Must read if you haven't come across this. Worth reading again if you have!

Being P.C.

Essay On Being Politically Correct by George Carlin


I know I'm a little late with this, but I'd like to get a few licks on this totally bogus topic before it completely disappears from everyone’s consciences. First I want to be really clear about one thing: as far as other people's feeling are concerned- especially these "victim groups"- when I deal with them as individuals, I will call them whatever they want. When it's one on one, if some guy wants me to call him a morbidly obese, African-ancestored male with a same gendered sexual orientation I'll be glad to do that. One the other hand if he wants me to call him a fat nigger cocksucker, than that's what it will be. I'm here to please. If I meet a women who wishes to be to be referred to as a motion-impaired, same gender-oriented Italian-American who is difficult to deal with, fine. On the other hand, I am perfectly willing to call her a crippled, Guinea dyke cnut if she prefers. I'm not trying to change anyone’s self image. But! But! When I am speaking generally, and impersonally about a large group of people, I will call them what I think is honest and fair. And I will not try and bullshit myself. Okay, so, who exactly are these victims?

Well, first of all, I don’t think everyone who says he is a victim automatically qualifies. I don't think a homely, disfigured, bald minority person with a room temperature IQ who limps and stutters is necessarily always a victim. Although I will say that she probably shouldn't be out trying to get work as a receptionist. But maybe that's just the way it oughtta be. I'm more interested in the real victims. People who have been fecked over by the system. Because the United States is a Christian racist nation with a rigged economic system run for three hundred years by the least morally qualified of the two sexes, there were bound to be some real victims. People who have been elaborately fecked over.

The way I see it, this country has only four real victim groups: Indians, blacks, women and gays. I purposely left out the Spanish and Asians, because when you look at what happened to the Indians and the blacks, the Spanish and Asian people had a walk in the park. It's not even close. Not to downplay the shit they've had to eat, but in about one hundred years the Spanish and Asians are going to be running this country, so they'll have plenty of chances to get even with the gray people.

Let's get to some of these other non-victims. You probably noticed elsewhere I used the word fat. I used that word because that's what fat people are. They're fat. They're not large; they're not stout, chunky, hefty, or plump. And they're not big-boned. Dinosaurs are big-boned. These people are not necessarily obese either. Obese is a medical term. And they're not overweight. Overweight implies there is some correct weight. There is no correct weight. Heavy is also a misleading term. An aircraft carrier is heavy, it is not fat. Only people are fat. That's what fat people are. They're fat. I offer no apology for this. It is not intended as criticism or insult. It is simply descriptive language. I don't like euphemisms. Euphemisms are a form of lying. Fat people are not gravitationally disadvantaged. They're fat. I prefer seeing things the way they are. Not the way some people wish they were.

I don't believe groups deserve extra-special names. For instance, midgets and dwarfs are midgets and dwarfs. They are not little people. Infants are little people; leprechauns are little people . Midgets and dwarfs are midgets and dwarfs. They don't get any taller by calling them little people. I wish their lives were different. I wish they didn't have to go around starring at other peoples crotches, but I can't fix that. And I'm not going to lie about what they are. The politically sensitive commandos would probably like me to call them "vertically challenged". They are not vertically challenged. A skydiver is vertically challenged. The person who designed the empire state building was vertically challenged. Midgets and dwarfs are midgets and dwarfs.

Also, crippled people are crippled. They are not differently-abled. If you insist on using such tortured language as differently-abled, then you must use it on all of us. We're all differently-abled. You can do things I can't do. I can do things you can't do. I can pick my nose with my thumb. I can switch hands while masturbating and gain a stroke. We are all differently-abled. Crippled people are crippled. It's a perfectly honorable word. There is no shame in it. It's in the Bible: "Jesus healed the cripples". He didn't “engage in rehabilitative strategies for the physically disadvantaged”.

So, leaving women and gays aside for a moment, I've narrowed it down to blacks and Indians. Let's talk about what we ought to call them. And remember, this has nothing to do with the people themselves, it has to do with the words. And, by the way, when it comes to liberal language vandals, I must agree with there underlying premise: White Europeans and their descendants are morally unattractive people who are responsible for most of the world’s suffering. That part is easy. You would have to be, uh, visually impaired, not to see it. The impulse behind political correctness is a good one. But like every good impulse in America, it has to be grotesquely distorted beyond usefulness. Clearly, these are victims, but I don't agree that these failed campus revolutionaries know what to do about them. When they're not busy curtailing freedom of speech, they're running around inventing absurd hyphenated names designed to make people feel better. Remember, these are the white elitists in there customary paternalistic role: protecting helpless, inept minority victims . Big Daddy White Boss always knows best. So, let me tell you how I handle some of these speech issues.

First of all, I say "black". I say "black" because most black people prefer "black". I don't say "people of color". People of color sounds like something you see when you are on mushrooms. Besides, the use of people of color is dishonest. It means precisely the same thing as colored people. If you’re not willing to say "colored people" you shouldn't be saying "people of color". Besides, the whole idea of color is bullshit anyway. What should we call white people? "People of no color"? Isn't pink a color? In fact, white people aren’t really white at all, they're different shades of pink, olive and beige. In other words, they're colored. And black people are rarely black. I see mostly different shades of brown and tan. In fact, some light-skinned black people are lighter than the darkest white people. Look how dark the people in India are. They're dark brown but they're still considered white people. What's going on here? May I see the color chart? "People of color” is an awkward, bullshit , liberal-guilt phrase that obscures meaning rather than enhancing it. Shall we call fat people, "people of size"? By the way, I think the whole reason we are encouraged in this country to think of ourselves as black and white (instead of pink and brown, which is what we are) is that black and white are complete opposites that cannot be reconciled. Black and white can never come together. Pink and brown, on the other hand, might just stand a chance of being blended, might just come together. Can't have that! Doesn't fit the plan.

I also don't say "African-American". I find it completely confusing. Which part of Africa are we talking about? What about Egypt? Egypt is in Africa. Egyptians aren’t black. They're like the people in India, they're the dark brown white people. But they're Africans. So why wouldn't an Egyptian who becomes a US citizen be an African-American? The same thing goes for the Republic of South Africa. Suppose a white racist from South Africa becomes an American citizen? Well, first of all, he'd find plenty of company, but couldn't he also be called an African American? It seems to me that a racist white South-African guy could come here and call himself African-American just to piss off black people. And, by the way, what about a black person born in South Africa who moves here and becomes a citizen? What is he? Is he a African-South-African-American? Or a South-African-African-American? All right. Back to the hemisphere. How about a black women who is a citizen of Jamaica? According to P.C. doctrine, she's African-Jamaican, right? But if she becomes a US citizen, she's a Jamaican-American. And yet if one of these language crusaders saw her on the street, he'd think she was African-American. Unless he knew her personally in which case he'd have to decide between African-Jamaican-American and Jamaican-African-American. Ya know? It's just so much liberal bullshit. Labels divide people. We need Fewer labels, not more!
Click to expand...
 
Edgar Allan Pillow said:
You need to make a shift away from their origins and not just try to re-brand them. Political Correctness is just a PR exercise that gives the politicians an easy excuse to make out as if they've made something different.
Click to expand...

Not sure what your post means. In my experience, PC is just a term used to respond to changes in terminology by historically persecuted groups.
 
ThierryHenry said:
It's not news worthy that three weirdos on Twitter have said something silly, and it's definitely not evidence of 'political correctness gone mad'. Clickbait journalism 'gone mad' is a different story entirely...
Click to expand...
The amount of people who call things like this racist is ridiculous, though. The fact it's a face filter and Bob Marley is black will always incite stupid comments. There's a few tweets yeah but tonnes of people will probably be thinking it.

Black face is when people literally paint themselves black to either dress up as a black person or take the piss. Not a filter.
 
Silva said:
Surely the fact that politicians can't say "those fecking niggers" is a good thing.
Click to expand...

Just in name. At least when somebody says "Those fecking niggers" we know they are racist. Now everyone uses the PC terms in public and we don't know who's a racist and who's not.

Raoul said:
Not sure what your post means. In my experience, PC is just a term used to respond to changes in terminology by historically persecuted groups.
Click to expand...

Just saying that rebranding stuff never changes the underlying problem. Racism was never a speech problem and the underlying attitude is not getting changed by renaming stuff.
 
Love the idea that the only way to spot a massive racist is their use of racial epithets.
 
Edgar Allan Pillow said:
Just saying that rebranding stuff never changes the underlying problem. Racism was never a speech problem and the underlying attitude is not getting changed by renaming stuff.
Click to expand...

It's a bit more complicated than that in that words and ownership of terminology shifts the power to the groups in question rather than allowing them to be defined by the existing power structure.

For example (in America):

Negros --> Blacks --> African Americans
Iranians --> Persians
Orientals --> Asians
Hispanics --> Latinos

Groups often reclaim the words that define their ethnic backgrounds because the old terms are any combination of archaic, racist, or offensive. Some might say that's political correctness, but you're not going to get many arguments today in favor of using terms like Negro or Oriental, because they are considered dirty words from the past.

The same can be said of using Gay or Queer as a way to characterize something odd or humorously unnatural. None of these newer terms are supposed to eradicate racism or homophobia; they are instead intended to redefine how society views each group by allowing the individual groups to define the terms by which society refers to them.
 
She sounds a bit of a tosser, but ultimately who gives a shit what she thinks.
 
DiseaseOfTheAge said:
I'm an NUS member. Been getting various emails last few days about the election. I'm fine with her, from what I know, to be honest.
Click to expand...

But to elect her at a time when concerns over anti-Semitism on university campuses are increasing? Labour MPs are making statemeng in opposition of union's new president on day one.
 
Nick 0208 Ldn said:
But to elect her at a time when concerns over anti-Semitism on university campuses are increasing? Labour MPs are making statemeng in opposition of union's new president on day one.
Click to expand...
I haven't yet seen anything from her which implies she's out of touch with the standard 'student' take on Judaism of 'Jews - fine, Judaism - fine, Israel - bad'.
 
DiseaseOfTheAge said:
No one. The only point of the NUS is we get 10% off at co-op food.
Click to expand...
Co-op food. Urgh, it was Kwik Save for cheap stuff back in my day. Their 1p cans of beans fed many a student.
 
NinjaFletch said:
Best bit about being at St Andrews. Everyone takes our student cards as if we were NUS members but we aren't a part of it and don't have to deal with their shite.
Click to expand...
Same with most unis, sales people generally don't get paid enough to be sticklers about it. I still use my old library card for discounts when I've had a shave.
 
Silva said:
Same with most unis, sales people generally don't get paid enough to be sticklers about it. I still use my old library card for discounts when I've had a shave.
Click to expand...

Yeah I still use my one from my undergraduate degree too but it's got the NUS logo on.

St Andrews consciously opts out of the NUS and has a yearly referendum about rejoining - well in theory, they couldn't find anyone to run the campaign to rejoin this year.
 
Raoul said:
It's a bit more complicated than that in that words and ownership of terminology shifts the power to the groups in question rather than allowing them to be defined by the existing power structure.

For example (in America):

Negros --> Blacks --> African Americans
Iranians --> Persians
Orientals --> Asians
Hispanics --> Latinos

Groups often reclaim the words that define their ethnic backgrounds because the old terms are any combination of archaic, racist, or offensive. Some might say that's political correctness, but you're not going to get many arguments today in favor of using terms like Negro or Oriental, because they are considered dirty words from the past.

The same can be said of using Gay or Queer as a way to characterize something odd or humorously unnatural. None of these newer terms are supposed to eradicate racism or homophobia; they are instead intended to redefine how society views each group by allowing the individual groups to define the terms by which society refers to them.
Click to expand...

Tbh, I still think it's just semantics. Tbh, it's new to me that Iranians, Orientals and Hispanics are all considered non PC.

- I just realized that negro denotes black in spanish. General consensus is that use of Black is more casual and less presumptuous (not sure how reflective they are of current social scene). https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/36hs72/african_americans_of_reddit_do_you_prefer_being/

To be personally African American is a very flaky term. Not all Blacks are Africans and not all Africans are Black. The chasm between African American vs African immigrating into America is quite wide and getting wider every passing generation. Calling them "African American" would soon become a blatant misnomer. (Happy to read about differing perspectives here).

- Hispanics vs Latinos is just semantics. By all means they seem to be mutually interchangeable terms. I just spoke to my colleague and boss (both are Latinos) The only difference is Latinos include all South Americans whereas Hispanics excluded Brazilians (as they are Portuguese by origin). So saying Latinos is a PC version of Hispanics is fundamentally and factually incorrect, PC or not becoming immaterial.

- As for Orientals, there are probably 5 or 6 restaurants that have 'Oriental' to describe their cuisine nearby in NYC itself. I've been to China and Japan before and am pretty sure they consider themselves orientals.

- Imo Persian is even more absurd. It's not even a recognized country/geographical region. A quick Google search brings up that the Shah of Iran in 1935 made an official request to refer to them as Iran and not Persia. And somehow persisting in calling them Persians is PC?

Finally, The official US Census bureau actually has "Blacks or African Americans", "Whites or Caucasians" and "Hispanics or Latinos" as their official race classification. Surely if that was that non-PC they'd have made some changes there.

I can agree on Queer as it's an outright insult and not a name term. I'm still confused on the use of 'gay' as we have gay pride marches, parades with people carrying banners reading 'gay and proud' and similar. Surely if the community considers that non-PC, they'd have differing banners and call the events differently. Another quick Google search bring a court ruling where US court has rules calling someone gay incorrectly is not a slander as there is nothing demeaning or insulting about being gay.

So In essence, I still maintain that PC is just a clever way to take the focus away from the problem at hand. It just adds more labels when we need to have less. It is useless at best and add to confusion at worst. We're better off without the PC crowd.

I usually do not post in detail...but thought this thread warrants it. I'd apologize in prior if I've offended anyone here. This conversation is holistic and not in any way prejudicial.
 
Edgar Allan Pillow said:
Tbh, I still think it's just semantics. Tbh, it's new to me that Iranians, Orientals and Hispanics are all considered non PC.

- I just realized that negro denoted black in spanish. General consensus is that use of Black is more casual and less presumptuous (not sure how reflective they are of current social scene). https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/36hs72/african_americans_of_reddit_do_you_prefer_being/

To be personally African American is a very flaky term. Not all Blacks are Africans and not all Africans are Black. The chasm between African American vs African immigrating into America is quite wide and getting wider every passing generation. Calling them "African American" would soon become a blatant misnomer. (Happy to read about differing perspectives here).

- Hispanics vs Latinos is just semantics. By all means they seem to be mutually interchangeable terms. I just spoke to my colleague and boss (both are Latinos) The only difference is Latinos include all South Americans whereas Hispanics excluded Brazilians (as they are Portuguese by origin). So saying Latinos is a PC version of Hispanics is fundamentally and factually incorrect, PC or not becoming immaterial.

- As for Orientals, there are probably 5 or 6 restaurants that have 'Oriental' to describe their cuisine nearby in NYC itself. I've been to China and Japan before and am pretty sure they consider themselves orientals.

- Imo Persian is even more absurd. It's not even a recognized country/geographical region. A quick Google search brings up that the Shah of Iran in 1935 made an official request to refer to them as Iran and not Persia. And somehow persisting in calling them Persians is PC?

Finally, The official US Census bureau actually has "Blacks or African Americans", "Whites or Caucasians" and "Hispanics or Latinos" as their official race classification. Surely if that was that non-PC they'd have made some changes there.

I can agree on Queer as it's an outright insult and not a name term. I'm still confused on the use of 'gay' as we have gay pride marches, parades with people carrying banners reading 'gay and proud' and similar. Surely if the community considers that non-PC, they'd have differing banners and call the events differently. Another quick Google search bring a court ruling where US court has rules calling someone gay incorrectly is not a slander as there is nothing demeaning or insulting about being gay.

So In essence, I still maintain that PC is just a clever way to take the focus away from the problem at hand. It just adds more labels when we need to have less. It is useless at best and add to confusion at worst. We're better off without the PC crowd.

I usually do not post in detail...but thought this thread warrants it. I'd apologize in prior if I've offended anyone here. This conversation is holistic and not in any way prejudicial.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, its a way for groups to reclaim the power associated with terms they have historically felt are discriminatory. And those that complain about PC are generally expressing their frustration that they can't use racially or sexually charged terminology in public settings as they once could years ago. Just yesterday here in the States, Curt Schilling got the sack after reposting a meme mocking transgenders in North Carolina. People are just coming to grips with the reality that they can no longer get away with mocking certain groups in public or on social media, as they once could. These instances aren't supposed to deflect from the underlying problem or cure it completely, they are intended to seize the narrative away from those who discriminate and towards those who reject discriminatory language.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.