Has political correctness actually gone mad?

How long before puritans complain that alcoholics anonymous is discriminatory? Or before they complain that drug rehabilitation clinics won't admit them? Why do OBYGNs treat so few men? What's the deal with NAACP? Shouldn't white people get to advance their grievances? We used to have slaves, it's so hard now.
 
Silva said:
Straight white people complaining they're not allowed to go to an LGBT workshop meant for people of colour are a bit like an ugly, single, overweight, STD ridden drunk complaining he's not allowed to enter burning man's orgy tent. Is it really that difficult to work out why?
Click to expand...

Are you in a minority where you live? I am.

I'm comfortable enough in my own skin to get on with things, and realise stirring up ill feeling by attempting to segregate myself by excluding others would have a detrimental effect. Pick your battles, and do it when there is genuine racism to be addressed. Don't sully the cause by bleating on every little thing like these people are.
 
11101 said:
Are you in a minority where you live? I am.

I'm comfortable enough in my own skin to get on with things, and realise stirring up ill feeling by attempting to segregate myself by excluding others would have a detrimental effect. Pick your battles.
Click to expand...
I am, but what does that have to do with it? As far as I can tell, a university society was being mistreated and protested. Why should they not fight that battle?

hobbers said:
Well honesty is usually a good starting point.
Click to expand...
"we don't want to be treated like shit" is about as honest as it gets.
 
I generally dislike the tendency on the part of some people to portray white men as being the great victims of modern society. Even still, I happily read through Mockney and Silva's posts looking for points to argue against as I quite enjoy being contrary.

Then I read things like "most 'racism' these days is daffy duck, hippy nonsense", "there is very little real racism left of the ilk that created racial segregation in the US" and "white college kids wouldn't want to campaign for white spaces because they are not intolerant of other ethnic or racial groups".

Ffs guys.
 
sullydnl said:
I generally dislike the tendency on the part of some people to portray white men as being the great victims of modern society. Even still, I happily read through Mockney and Silva's posts looking for points to argue against as I quite enjoy being contrary.

Then I read things like "most 'racism' these days is daffy duck, hippy nonsense", "there is very little real racism left of the ilk that created racial segregation in the US" and "white college kids wouldn't want to campaign for white spaces because they are not intolerant of other ethnic or racial groups".

Ffs guys.
Click to expand...

Have a look through the history books if you think modern racism is the Western world is anywhere close to what it once was. We're a million times better now and very few serious incidences of it occur, but you wouldn't think that to listen to some people. There is still some way to go but arguing things like segregating a college group just dilutes the real problems.
 
11101 said:
Have a look through the history books if you think modern racism is the Western world is anywhere close to what it once was. We're a million times better now and very few serious incidences of it occur, but you wouldn't think that to listen to some people. There is still some way to go but arguing things like segregating a college group just dilutes the real problems.
Click to expand...

Being "not close to where it was once" is a million miles away from the point you're making that it's more or less a non issue.
 
Mockney said:
For those born on the right side of privilege, and losing the most territory, equality always feels like oppression.
Click to expand...

This needs to be said a million times over, and over, and over again.

11101 said:
Have a look through the history books if you think modern racism is the Western world is anywhere close to what it once was. We're a million times better now and very few serious incidences of it occur, but you wouldn't think that to listen to some people. There is still some way to go but arguing things like segregating a college group just dilutes the real problems.
Click to expand...

Out of curiosity, how do you - I presume as a non person of colour - identify racism?
Telling people who are of colour that racism isn't as bad as it once was, therefore we're doing a great job and you shouldn't complain, isn't really comforting. And if you were a person of colour you would know this, and know how ridiculous your argument is.
 
vi1lain said:
Out of curiosity, how do you - I presume as a non person of colour - identify racism?
Telling people who are of colour that racism isn't as bad as it once was, therefore we're doing a great job and you shouldn't complain, isn't really comforting. And if you were a person of colour you would know this, and know how ridiculous your argument is.
Click to expand...

Read up thread. I am a minority, and frequently see and experience racism to some degree in life and in work. I just don't get so worked up about it as many people seem to do, because gone are the days when when it was dangerous to be a minority and I believe by going about life as if all is normal it eventually will be normal. Kicking up a fuss about the serious incidences is necessary, but kicking up a fuss about anything and everything just creates further divide.
 
11101 said:
Read up thread. I am a minority, and frequently see and experience racism to some degree in life and in work. I just don't get so worked up about it as many people seem to do, because gone are the days when when it was dangerous to be a minority and I believe by going about life as if all is normal it eventually will be normal. Kicking up a fuss about the serious incidences is necessary, but kicking up a fuss about anything and everything just creates further divide.
Click to expand...

I actually agree with this. But I imagine it's tricky spotting the dividing line between the two. Especially when young and idealistic.
 
11101 said:
Read up thread. I am a minority, and frequently see and experience racism to some degree in life and in work. I just don't get so worked up about it as many people seem to do, because gone are the days when when it was dangerous to be a minority and I believe by going about life as if all is normal it eventually will be normal. Kicking up a fuss about the serious incidences is necessary, but kicking up a fuss about anything and everything just creates further divide.
Click to expand...

So basically, you wish others would have the same mindset as you. And those who do 'kick up a fuss' (irrespective of the fact that you don't know them, their situation, what levels of racism/prejudice they receive etc) should basically suck it up.
Rather than actually trying to aim to remove the environment which allows racism to continue.

What do you think will change by doing nothing? And how do you qualify what is "serious" and what isn't when it comes to racism?
Why is the onus placed on those who are targeted, and not those who do the targeting?
 
11101 said:
Have a look through the history books if you think modern racism is the Western world is anywhere close to what it once was. We're a million times better now and very few serious incidences of it occur, but you wouldn't think that to listen to some people. There is still some way to go but arguing things like segregating a college group just dilutes the real problems.
Click to expand...

You didn't argue that it wasn't what it once was though. You said there was very little of it and that most "racism" these days was hippy dippy nonsense. All of this in a year where racial tensions have come to the fore as one of the biggest issues in America, perhaps only topped in newsworthiness by the presidential campaign of a candidate who intends to introduce blatantly racist policies.
 
Mockney said:
If you combine all different denominations of "Asian" into one, manageable monthly "Asian", then sure. But then that would be pretty darn racist, really...




Aside from failing to accept how wrong you were about the Berkely demographics (because hey, why should factual accuracy matter when you're making sweeping prejudicial judgements about races!?) you're now saying that a white majority would indeed increase violence, but only by being so irresistibly white and awesome, that the huddled minority masses would inevitably rise up and attack them?...because... Why not



White students wouldn't have to campaign for white spaces, because 99.99% of spaces are white by default. Once again, this is the point. Racism doesn't exist in a vacuum. After centuries of slavery, and a mere 50 odd years of attempted rehabilitation, we can't just handwave ourselves back to default!

The last 300+ years of history has been a long form tale of white people stopping blacks from entering everything!...It's only in the last half century or so that we've even begun to look at it any differently.



Ipso Facto; Racism's done! The Fresh Prince cured it. Well done everyone!
Click to expand...
You do realize that UC schools have quotas which discriminate against white candidates.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.latimes.com/la-oe-mac_donald-2008sep07-story,amp.html?client=safari
 
AllezLesDiables said:
You do realize that UC schools have quotas which discriminate against white candidates.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.latimes.com/la-oe-mac_donald-2008sep07-story,amp.html?client=safari
Click to expand...

I looked at the reference in the LA Times article ("study by Prof. Richard Berk"). Google showed me this: (http://www.senate.ucla.edu/committee/lga/2003/lgaFeb2003/Annual_Rep_CUARS.doc
Berk is mentioned there)
On page 5, the 3rd table, last row: "Under-represented minorities"
Admit rates: 1999 24.1% 2000 23.8% 2001 22.1%
"Overall" admit rates
1999 28.9% 2000 28.9% 2001 28.9%
That is a direct opposite of what the article said ("At UCLA, from 1998 to 2001, black applicants were 3.6 times as likely to be admitted to its undergraduate college as whites, and Latinos 1.8 times as likely, even after controlling for economic status and school ranking, according to an unpublished study by statistician Richard Berk.")

CA residents (strongest link), females, 1st-gen learners and students from poor schools (weakest link) seemed to be the groups with consistently higher admit rates than the average.


Further,
Does the UC system use affirmative action?

No. California schools are bound by Proposition 209, which in 1996 disallowed state public institutions from discriminating on the basis of race, sex or ethnicity. That means the UC system can’t use an individual’s race as a factor when considering his or her application.

Does this mean UC Berkeley might begin an affirmative action policy?

No — the Proposition 209 ban will remain effective despite the Supreme Court decision. In California, an affirmative action program cannot be implemented unless state law is changed. Seven other states have passed similar affirmative action bans.
Click to expand...

Source: http://projects.dailycal.org/affirmative-action/
The 1st graph (admission rates vs year) shows quite neatly what happened once affirmative action was dropped: admit rates for American Indians, blacks and latinos dropped drastically both in absolute and relative (to other groups) terms, whites dropped slightly in absolute terms but rose in relation to minorities, while Asians were the most steady in absolute terms and rose to the top by 2010.
 
Last edited:
Now what if some guys all decided to dress up as The Village People. Yes the guy was the Indian in the Village People was half Sioux or something like that. But are you guilty of cultural appropriation, racism, or insensitivity if you are the one who dresses up like Felipe Rose (yes I had to google to get what his real name was) or is it okay since you are dressing up as a guy from a campy 1970's disco group?
 
Cultural appropriation warrior hits a snag. Please help.

CwBxncTXgAEWnT0.jpg

CwBxw-HXgAA45xS.jpg
 
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/55203p/feminists_of_reddit_what_gendered_issue_sounds/

The stuff about pregnant grad students ruining their future careers is something a friend of mine had to think about when considering her PhD, since she has some health issues and it probably won't be safe for her to have a child late. Her final reasoning was that she loved chemistry, hopefully more than she would love wanting a baby in the next 5-7 years (and thus ever).

I've become a feminist from some pretty anti-feminist positions so I still have some sympathy with those arguments: the university/professor cannot pay you with their very limited grant money while you aren't working. But: it's a burden only women have to experience.
Also, a postdoc in my lab (run by a female professor) recently got pregnant, worked till 3 days before delivery, and came back just 45 days later. I don't think that (or anything upto 3-4 months) is a huge hit to the lab funding. Of course, most students don't have the luxury of parents babysitting for your child.



Fortunately for me, my 0% success in dating corresponds with my 0% reproductive urge so I'm out of this mess and the potential sneering caused by taking time off as a father.
 
Last edited:
crappycraperson said:
Terrible read. It increasingly seems that some on liberal left have joined the ways of regressive right in shunning debate and instead choosing intimidation to win the war of ideas.
Click to expand...

Is is anything new, though? The idea of the liberal left focusing on trivial shit instead of important matters is nothing new. It was getting parodied back in the late 70s in Life of Brian.
 
I don't consider this political correctness gone made, but it doesn't seem to need a thread about it and might fit in here

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/03/us/harvard-soccer-season-canceled/index.html

A sexist tradition has cost the Harvard men's soccer team the rest of the season.
Harvard University canceled the remainder of the 2016 men's soccer season following an investigation into reports of a custom of ranking woman's soccer players' physical attributes in the lewdest of terms, university officials said.

The "scouting report" evaluated freshmen women soccer players on their looks and sex appeal with numerical scores and offensive descriptions, according to a Harvard Crimson report about the discovery of such a document from 2012.
But the "appalling actions" were not isolated to 2012, Harvard President Drew Faust said.
The report prompted a university investigation which found that the practice was "widespread across the team" and continued into the 2016 season, Harvard Athletics Director Bob Scalise said in an email to student athletes.

Read More
Current students "were not immediately forthcoming about their involvement," he added, leading to the decision to forfeit remaining games.
Harvard has 'zero tolerance' for such behavior
Harvard was scheduled to play two more regular season games. The team now will forfeit them and "decline any opportunity to achieve an Ivy League championship or to participate in the NCAA Tournament this year," Scalise wrote.
"We strongly believe that this immediate and significant action is absolutely necessary if we are to create an environment of mutual support, respect, and trust among our students and our teams," he added.
Going forward, Harvard Athletics will partner with the Office of Sexual Assault Prevention and Response and other Harvard College resources to educate all student-athletes on "the seriousness of these behaviors and the general standard of respect and conduct that is expected," he said.
"Harvard Athletics has zero tolerance for this type of behavior."
Faust said in a statement that she fully supported the decision to end the season.
"The decision to cancel a season is serious and consequential, and reflects Harvard's view that both the team's behavior and the failure to be forthcoming when initially questioned are completely unacceptable, have no place at Harvard, and run counter to the mutual respect that is a core value of our community," she wrote.
'Locker room talk' no excuse
Some of the women described in the 2012 report broke their silence in a Crimson op-ed. Kelsey Clayman, Brooke Dickens, Alika Keene, Emily Mosbacher, Lauren Varela and Haley Washburn said they were "beyond hurt" to learn that men they considered close friends treated them in such a way -- but, ultimately, not surprised.
"The sad reality is that we have come to expect this kind of behavior from so many men, that it is so 'normal' to us we often decide it is not worth our time or effort to dwell on," they wrote.
"In all, we do not pity ourselves, nor do we ache most because of the personal nature of this attack. More than anything, we are frustrated that this is a reality that all women have faced in the past and will continue to face throughout their lives. We feel hopeless because men who are supposed to be our brothers degrade us like this."
They said they had seen the documents but knew better than to let "the judgment of a few men" determine their worth -- thanks in large part to their training at Harvard.
"We know what it's like to get knocked down. To lose a few battles. To sweat, to cry, to bleed. To fight so hard, yet no matter what we do, the game is still out of our hands. And, even still, we keep fighting; for ourselves, yes, but above all for our teammates. This document might have stung any other group of women you chose to target, but not us," they wrote.
"'Locker room talk'" is not an excuse because this is not limited to athletic teams. The whole world is the locker room. Yet in it we feel blessed to know many men who do not and would never participate in this behavior out of respect for us—out of respect for women. To them we are grateful, and with them we strive to share a mutual respect through our own actions and words."
Correction: An earlier version of this story incorrectly identified Harvard President Drew Faust as a man.
Click to expand...

The correction at the bottom of the article also deserves special attention and a huge facepalm.
 
https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch...eful-harassment-and-intimidation-election-day


My 12 year old daughter is African American. A boy approached her and said, "now that Trump is president, I'm going to shoot you and all the blacks I can find". We reported it to the school who followed up with my daughter and the boy appropriately.
...
The day after the presidential election, my friend, a black female freshman in a [Boston area college], heard a white female student say: "this is their punishment for 8 years of black people." When she turned around to see who said it, the white student laughed at her.
...
I was standing at a red light waiting to cross the street. A black truck with three white men pulled up to the red light. One of them yelled, "feck your black life!" The other two began to laugh. One began to chant "Trump!" as they drove away.
...
"Build a wall" was chanted in our cafeteria Wed at lunch."If you aren't born here, pack your bags" was shouted in my own classroom. "Get out spic" was said in our halls.
...
A student in an English IV course told his teacher, who is Mexican-American, that he needs to take his family and get out of our country. The student mentioned he wasn't welcome any longer. He supported this argument by citing comments from our President-elect.
...
Someone painted "Trump 2016 MAGA" and "you gotta go back now" on the wall outside the building I work in at the University of South Florida
...
"Death to Diversity" was written on a banner displayed on our library for people to see, as well as written on posters across campus. As well as white males going up to women saying that it was now "legal to grab them by the pussy".
...
On Wednesday, November 9, 2016, a student in a Trump T-shirt was going down the halls of the high school saying, "BYE!" to girls in hijabs and anyone who appeared to be of Mexican descent. (The matter is being investigated.)
...
Today a young Latino man in is 20's, and a co-worker of mine, was walking into work as a truck slowed down and two white men threw a bag of garbage onto him and yelled, "you are going back to where you came from" and drove off. This was in Austin, a very liberal and progressive city. I am shocked and appalled that this happened.
...
White males in black Ford truck were calling a black family in vehicle next to them N***ers, and yelling that it was Trump's country now. Truck sped off before I could get license info.
Click to expand...
 
Keeps It tidy said:
You often notice that anti PC people often become real delicate around the word racism.
Click to expand...

Being called racist* is worse than racism, don't cha know.

* Or more often, simply being told you're maybe not being quite as sensitive as you could be to a complicated issue you haven't a full understanding or experience of...is worse than racism... Don't cha know.
 
Last edited:
hobbers said:
Can't say I've ever noticed that. In fact most would revel in having words like racism thrown at them incorrectly. If some dumb SJW calls you a racist over a fact or an opinion they don't like, it's just their unique way of conceding the argument.

The overuse of the word is quickly reducing its impact to nothing, sadly.
Click to expand...

Curious, what's defined as racism to you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.