Truly, there's nothing new under the sun - just look at this complaint from 1500 B.C.:
Plato said:
Has political correctness actually gone mad?
- Thread starter Pogue Mahone
- Start date
Also, when you zoom it back a bit, the suggestion that in the entire expanse of human history, this one generation - which isn't particularly that far removed from the last - are going to be so uniquely and originally unable to cope with the rigors of life, that it's going to be somehow calamitous for society, seems a wee bit daft and over the top really.
(Also also...sorry for the editing!)
The disconnect you're currently finding is that you're applying dictionary definitions to sociological situations. That's not going to help you understand at all.
What I will tell you is that I've felt the weight of being a person of colour in an overwhelmingly white upbringing (I grew up in South East Wales - literally the only person of colour at the entire school, until I moved to Surrey at the age of 13 and became one of the only 3 black people in my year, and I could count on two hands the amount of people of colour completely)
When I first heard the term I understood completely what it meant, and I didn't need a dictionary to tell me otherwise.
It's situations for example where I would be scared to go into shops by myself because I knew I was more likely to be followed than everyone else.
Only seeing black women like myself being depicted as ghetto baby mamas, "the help", generally being fat and or ugly, uneducated etc in tv and movie roles.
Being told that the way my hair grows naturally out of my head is a political statement that could be used against me in situations such as job interviews.
The oxford dictionary won't tell you that, and again it has nothing to do with wealth, my family are considered middle class and I still face these situations and many more.
There's also this piece written in the 80s if you want more examples: https://www.deanza.edu/faculty/lewisjulie/White Priviledge Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack.pdf
As for cultural appropriation - you were on the right track with the erasure of cultural identity.
It's more so to do with the simplification of people's culture, and reducing it to a costume.
For example in my culture wearing the Kente cloth is significant because it's part of the history of the Ashanti Empire, known today as Ghana. Made of silk, worn by royalty and woven by hand each individual design is unique, and tailored fit for the individual. You can identify where someone comes from by their Kente cloth alone, patterns have individual meanings and proverbs - I could go on but you get the idea.
Now if you were to visit Ghana, there's dozens of trade stalls intended to sell to tourists and foreigners with the aim of learning more about the history, and being a part of it's historical significance - that is cultural appreciation. Which is part of trade, increasing knowledge and culture and has been around for thousands of years.
Cultural appropriation comes in when you strip the historical, indigenous, or religious significance of something in order to make mass marketable, and reduce people of colour to stereotypes or costumes.
It's not always intentional, but it can be hurtful or insulting, and the fact that this has to be explained is kinda the point.
I personally believe everyone has the freedom to express themselves however they wish, but using cultural symbols to satisfy a need for personal expression blurs the lines.
Now I don't believe that dressing up in fancy dress is intentionally insulting, but a lot of it does depend on racial stereotyping - most people don't think of the implications of dressing up as an Arab, or a Geisha, or a Mexican in a sombrero, I mean why would you, it's funny, or fun, or sexy so these implications don't affect you. Mostly, racially, ethnically and culturally based costumes are intended to be one of two things - humorous or erotic. What is it about these people that is funny? (especially if they were killed as a result of their culture - e.g. Native Indians) Nothing is. It's dehumanising people who were already marginalised by society, reducing them to offensive caricatures in order to make our friends laugh, to make us feel more exotic, or in order to make ourselves look hot.
I could go on but you get the general idea.
Like I said it's not always intentional, but the mere suggestion that it's a 'faux issue' is simply false, if you'd like to know about both issues then by all means send me a message.
Last edited:
Thing is, I went to the MGTOW subreddit and watched some videos labelled MGTOW, out of curiosity. They barely do anything but discuss women and why they are poisonous to both the individual man and to society as a whole.
And for what it's worth, incels and PUA are not the worst part of Red Pill. The Red Pill itself is the worst part of it: the ideology that maintains that women are irresponsible teenagers who are manipulative, cannot love you and have no sense of loyalty.
This just in: irony becomes the latest victim of 2016.
If only... this thing started long before this miserable year. Although it's great to see that their existence is news to so many people. We have to do our best NOT to spread the word.
The younger generation will always be more "progressive" than their parents in some form or the other, it's inevitable, but that does not mean we should sit idly by and accept it nor challenge the ideas put forward. The fact that today's young people are so involved in political and social issues is fantastic, and the vast majority of them are well on their way to becoming sensible adults.
The issue however with "political correctness gone mad" is that more and more people use "social justice" as a cudgel to beat people with. The issue itself is second in line, whilst the focus lies in bullying and silencing people with opposing views.
The real problem however is the fact that (some)university campuses seem to cater more and more to the hypersensitive. When universities favor censorship over free speech and critical thought, you have a BIG problem on your hands.
I'm a teacher, and has worked in both primary schools and at high schools and this is pretty much spot on. Not only has parenting changed radically the last decades, but so has the classrooms and while it has some wonderful advantages, it also comes with some disadvantages attached. I read a fantastic article when i studied pedagogy, about just the dangers of modern pedagogical developments.
Basically, young today have their entire childhood controlled and supervised by adults. While it has some great benefits like a massive reduction in bullying and a markedly improvement in academic results. At the same time it "suffocates them" and stunts their personal and emotional growth, especially when it comes to self-sufficiency and self-confidence. This in turn leads to kids who are much more dependent on their peers and parents, much more dependent on external validation which ultimately leads to them becoming less emotionally and physiological resilient. One of the big "paradoxes" in education today is how bullying in western countries is rapidly declining, whilst at the same time the number of young with social and emotional issues is rising.
They all come across as terrible people who are completely unable (due to a combination of their own inadequacy and/or group-think misogyny) to talk to and listen to women as actual, you know, people. As opposed to a life support system for a pussy. It's incredibly sad. In every meaning of the word.
I appreciate the response and i won't quote your entire post since it was so long.
I truly understand that you growing up in a predominantly white area in a "white" country you would feel disconnected, alienated or even oppressed by nothing but the virtue of your skin color. I am not going to pretend i "get it" either, because i am in no position to understand really. Racism IS still a huge issue and i am not denying the existence of systematic privilege.
My problem with it however is how certain people us it as a stick to beat others with, creating nothing but divide, instead of actually working towards bettering the position of those less fortunate. My biggest gripe with it however is how people switch the parameters in order to fit it into a certain agenda. Not only socio-economic but a multitude of other factors as well like health, mental health and upbringing. For example, a white middle class boy growing up in a abusive home or being born with a crippling illness making him a paraplegic is not someone i would considered "privileged". I took some sociology classes at Uni actually and these big societal models that reduce people to their obvious attributes and tries to fit them into a mold based on [x,y,z] don't sit well with me
But when it comes to the part with cultural appropriation, i can't agree with you for a number of reasons.
1) Just because you wear a costume, a hairstyle or basically anything emulating a different culture, past or present does NOT mean you seek to "strip the historical, indigenous, or religious significance" from it. Unless done so in a obviously mocking or deriding fashion you can't simply assume ill intent from the person doing so.
2) Costumes at their very essence are stereotypes. If you went to a Halloween party dressed in regular clothes and told people you went as a Mexican, i guess most people would find it lame. It would still be a more truthful representation though, because Mexicans do not in fact wear sombreros on ponchos on a regular basis, they wear the jeans and t-shirts like everyone else.
3) People dressing up or using something from a different culture, does not mean there is some hidden implication behind it.
4) If you are going to use the sins of colonialism as yard stick for what is acceptable or not, then pretty much any use or participation of "ethnic" culture would be considered offensive.
Now of course there are morons who ARE offensive, either deliberately or just by being to daft to understand they are, but i honestly believe that amusing intent with someone and then trying to police them by it is a losing battle
@Bobcat
The problem I have with your first example is, not only is it an uncommon case, but all it does is serve to detract from the actual issue.
All things being equal, when we talk about the issue of white privilege we're talking about the average white person - regardless of class, upbringing, socio-economic status etc. Things like disability, mental health, homelessness or other factors which aren't attributed to the 'average' person are extreme.
Of course it doesn't extend to an crippling paraplegic boy, why would it? We could sit here for hours and invent situations and people who are such extreme and rare cases of society to fit an agenda, and all it will do is distract from the actual issue.
If you could tell me how what I said doesn't apply to the average person of colour, or the average white person - then yes we can have a conversation about that.
People use things as a stick to beat others with in any situation, that's human nature, we're terrible beings - but again it's not reflective of the entire scope. More often than not, depending on your agenda, you're more likely to only pick out the extreme examples because it makes your argument look better.
As for the cultural appropriation - I can understand why you don't agree, I even identified that it's not always set out with the intention to insult or humiliate another culture.
I simply explained the meaning behind it, and why some people can view it as an issue to their culture, not all.
The whole point is that you identified both situations as faux issues, to me the suggestion is that people "should get over it", "there are bigger things to worry about" etc. All I did in response was explain why it's not as simple as that, and presented a different perspective.
As you said, you cant "pretend to get it" because it's not something you personally have to live with, therefore brushing it off just because [x,y,z] doesn't make it right either.
Your first issue I identified and said that it's not always intentionally insulting.
The second issue doesn't make it right - for example if you wanted to go as a Mexican you could go as Frida Kahlo, Carlos Santana, Vicente Fernandez or if you wanted the whole Latin American appeal there's - Pablo Escobar, Che Guevera and many more. None of those require you to wear a silly costume, and are actually more interesting and certainly not lame. Deciding to group all Mexicans under one 'look' is where the stereotypes come in to play.
Third - I agree with, but again like I said it's not always intentional.
Fourth - The sins of colonialism? All I did was state a fact. Suddenly it's become taboo? I don't understand.
The problem I have with your first example is, not only is it an uncommon case, but all it does is serve to detract from the actual issue.
All things being equal, when we talk about the issue of white privilege we're talking about the average white person - regardless of class, upbringing, socio-economic status etc. Things like disability, mental health, homelessness or other factors which aren't attributed to the 'average' person are extreme.
Of course it doesn't extend to an crippling paraplegic boy, why would it? We could sit here for hours and invent situations and people who are such extreme and rare cases of society to fit an agenda, and all it will do is distract from the actual issue.
If you could tell me how what I said doesn't apply to the average person of colour, or the average white person - then yes we can have a conversation about that.
People use things as a stick to beat others with in any situation, that's human nature, we're terrible beings - but again it's not reflective of the entire scope. More often than not, depending on your agenda, you're more likely to only pick out the extreme examples because it makes your argument look better.
As for the cultural appropriation - I can understand why you don't agree, I even identified that it's not always set out with the intention to insult or humiliate another culture.
I simply explained the meaning behind it, and why some people can view it as an issue to their culture, not all.
The whole point is that you identified both situations as faux issues, to me the suggestion is that people "should get over it", "there are bigger things to worry about" etc. All I did in response was explain why it's not as simple as that, and presented a different perspective.
As you said, you cant "pretend to get it" because it's not something you personally have to live with, therefore brushing it off just because [x,y,z] doesn't make it right either.
Your first issue I identified and said that it's not always intentionally insulting.
The second issue doesn't make it right - for example if you wanted to go as a Mexican you could go as Frida Kahlo, Carlos Santana, Vicente Fernandez or if you wanted the whole Latin American appeal there's - Pablo Escobar, Che Guevera and many more. None of those require you to wear a silly costume, and are actually more interesting and certainly not lame. Deciding to group all Mexicans under one 'look' is where the stereotypes come in to play.
Third - I agree with, but again like I said it's not always intentional.
Fourth - The sins of colonialism? All I did was state a fact. Suddenly it's become taboo? I don't understand.
What this thread also seems to do is make the bizarre assumption that what happens at some Universities is representative of what happens regularly in mainstream society. And that the kind of behavior that informs it, is the kind of final form end game of all millennials, as if no one before has ever been passionately reckless or overly wanton to protest during their college days, or exhibited poor judgment during their youth. All of which is obviously bollocks.
* By sheer chance I had a page with this photo open in another tab, which I feel is rather serendipitously fitting...
I'd even disagree that the issues at the heart of "social justice" are always - or even usually - secondary to the righteous cudgelling of which you speak. Aside from being the kind of thing you naturally notice far more when you're on one particular side of it (i.e. the potentially cudgelling side, rather than one affected by the issue) it's also exactly the same kind of sweeping assertion that sees those "cudgelled" as racist/misogynist/uncaring in the first place.
I do definitely agree that there are issues inherent in that kind of outlook - Non-platforming I have a huge problem with, for example - but it I also think that threads like this tend to magnify mostly harmless issues like safe spaces or trigger warnings, for controversy's sake as much as anything else. Which in turn makes it in danger of veering perilously close to the ol' "being called a racist is as bad as being racist" argument.
I mean, for all the supposed problems caused by the over-sensitivity of the "snowflake" generation, there ironically seems to be a hell of a lot of people almost comically over-sensitive to their actions...
Last edited:
Safe spaces are demonstrably good, though. Rather than merely harmless. Be it in the form of Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, a university room with puppies in it, a room for LGBT kids or a private Facebook page for people with minority political opinions. Even internet forums for racists. They're good things for those that need them.
Last edited:
Great example of a safe space.
Ironically, this thread is a safe space for all who deem Political correctness and safe spaces insufferable.
This site is a safe space for United fans and even rival fans alike Etc.
Reading through the Obama transcript of his speech as recommended, there were a number of interesting facts that jumped out at me. As powerful as that speech was, it seems it was designed for and aimed at America and the African-American experience. There were many things that he spoke about that I could empathise and relate to. Some comments from the same link:
"[The] best speech ever given on race in this country. This is the kind of speech I think first graders should see, people in the last year of college should see before they go out in the world. This should be, to me, an American tract."
Chris Matthews, MSNBC
&
"Obama challenged Americans to confront the country’s racial divide…an extraordinary speech."
Charles Gibson, ABC News
If we are truly to speak honestly about some of these issues I think one of the first things that need to be acknowledged is that the experiences of the black race is not one that universally shared by all. For some the only thing they believe they share is the "African" in much the same way whites use "Anglo", but yet see themselves vastly different depending on country and culture. I am of African Caribbean lineage, but born and raised in Britain, so my experience differs somewhat from that of the average African-American. For instance i found this bit a little difficult to get my head around:
"That anger [that black people feel] is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races."
To be honest I'm not sure what he means by complicity? The reality of my condition is that my ancestors were forcefully taken as slaves to strange colonies that were forcefully taken from the indigenous people for the expansion of European Empires. They were subjected to abuses, beatings or worse and lived in sub-human conditions where they didn't even own their own bodies." Mas'a" did what he wished and took what he wanted. What was left was little better than trained animals. When Empires decided that the resources from these colonies were sufficiently stripped they decided that they would offer some kind of dependent independence to these poor, broken displaced human beings. In some of these countries they pretty still exist in the same state that they were left in to this day. At what point did these humans beings have a say choice in what happened to them? In what way were they complicit in their plights? So called civilised countries waged wars on each other throughout this period in the name of freedom and justice whilst turning a blind eye to the fact that they were denying these same rights to those on their own doorsteps.
Earlier in that same speech he also stated:
"But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America - to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality.
The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we've never really worked through - a part of our union that we have yet to perfect. And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care, or education, or the need to find good jobs for every American.
Understanding this reality requires a reminder of how we arrived at this point. As William Faulkner once wrote, "The past isn't dead and buried. In fact, it isn't even past." We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country. But we do need to remind ourselves that so many of the disparities that exist in the African-American community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.
Segregated schools were, and are, inferior schools; we still haven't fixed them, fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, and the inferior education they provided, then and now, helps explain the pervasive achievement gap between today's black and white students.
Legalized discrimination - where blacks were prevented, often through violence, from owning property, or loans were not granted to African-American business owners, or black homeowners could not access FHA mortgages, or blacks were excluded from unions, or the police force, or fire departments - meant that black families could not amass any meaningful wealth to bequeath to future generations. That history helps explain the wealth and income gap between black and white, and the concentrated pockets of poverty that persists in so many of today's urban and rural communities.
A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one's family, contributed to the erosion of black families - a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened. And the lack of basic services in so many urban black neighborhoods - parks for kids to play in, police walking the beat, regular garbage pick-up and building code enforcement - all helped create a cycle of violence, blight and neglect that continue to haunt us."
This I can relate to. Looking back at the events over the last year, I am struggling to remember which SJW or any other politician represented people like me in the EU referendum, and I am sure as hell confused about the SJW who represented "people of colour" in the US Elections. My blood boils when some accuse others of playing the race card and conveniently sweep the past under the carpet, as if it plays no part in the here and now. As I stated in a earlier post Britain, America and other European powers have shaped the world we now live in, and therefore the unrest we now seeing is also of their own design, and now they are reaping what they have sown. Unfortunately some of the casualties now are their own.
Apologies for the length of the post.
"[The] best speech ever given on race in this country. This is the kind of speech I think first graders should see, people in the last year of college should see before they go out in the world. This should be, to me, an American tract."
Chris Matthews, MSNBC
&
"Obama challenged Americans to confront the country’s racial divide…an extraordinary speech."
Charles Gibson, ABC News
If we are truly to speak honestly about some of these issues I think one of the first things that need to be acknowledged is that the experiences of the black race is not one that universally shared by all. For some the only thing they believe they share is the "African" in much the same way whites use "Anglo", but yet see themselves vastly different depending on country and culture. I am of African Caribbean lineage, but born and raised in Britain, so my experience differs somewhat from that of the average African-American. For instance i found this bit a little difficult to get my head around:
"That anger [that black people feel] is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races."
To be honest I'm not sure what he means by complicity? The reality of my condition is that my ancestors were forcefully taken as slaves to strange colonies that were forcefully taken from the indigenous people for the expansion of European Empires. They were subjected to abuses, beatings or worse and lived in sub-human conditions where they didn't even own their own bodies." Mas'a" did what he wished and took what he wanted. What was left was little better than trained animals. When Empires decided that the resources from these colonies were sufficiently stripped they decided that they would offer some kind of dependent independence to these poor, broken displaced human beings. In some of these countries they pretty still exist in the same state that they were left in to this day. At what point did these humans beings have a say choice in what happened to them? In what way were they complicit in their plights? So called civilised countries waged wars on each other throughout this period in the name of freedom and justice whilst turning a blind eye to the fact that they were denying these same rights to those on their own doorsteps.
Earlier in that same speech he also stated:
"But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America - to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality.
The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we've never really worked through - a part of our union that we have yet to perfect. And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care, or education, or the need to find good jobs for every American.
Understanding this reality requires a reminder of how we arrived at this point. As William Faulkner once wrote, "The past isn't dead and buried. In fact, it isn't even past." We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country. But we do need to remind ourselves that so many of the disparities that exist in the African-American community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.
Segregated schools were, and are, inferior schools; we still haven't fixed them, fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, and the inferior education they provided, then and now, helps explain the pervasive achievement gap between today's black and white students.
Legalized discrimination - where blacks were prevented, often through violence, from owning property, or loans were not granted to African-American business owners, or black homeowners could not access FHA mortgages, or blacks were excluded from unions, or the police force, or fire departments - meant that black families could not amass any meaningful wealth to bequeath to future generations. That history helps explain the wealth and income gap between black and white, and the concentrated pockets of poverty that persists in so many of today's urban and rural communities.
A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one's family, contributed to the erosion of black families - a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened. And the lack of basic services in so many urban black neighborhoods - parks for kids to play in, police walking the beat, regular garbage pick-up and building code enforcement - all helped create a cycle of violence, blight and neglect that continue to haunt us."
This I can relate to. Looking back at the events over the last year, I am struggling to remember which SJW or any other politician represented people like me in the EU referendum, and I am sure as hell confused about the SJW who represented "people of colour" in the US Elections. My blood boils when some accuse others of playing the race card and conveniently sweep the past under the carpet, as if it plays no part in the here and now. As I stated in a earlier post Britain, America and other European powers have shaped the world we now live in, and therefore the unrest we now seeing is also of their own design, and now they are reaping what they have sown. Unfortunately some of the casualties now are their own.
Apologies for the length of the post.
Where's that from bro?
AA - fine, it's a support network
LGBT meetings- fine- support network
Uni- surely they are there to learn and become more rounded before entering the jobs market
I would argue that part of the problem with politics today is that avoiding engaging with people who disagree with you is far too easy, particularly on the internet. It is a cause of extremism on all sides.
Unless there is a good reason, such as with AA, LGBT, Violence Survivors groups etc I don't see how 'safe spaces' are actually helpful to people.
Maybe I am looking at it from a biased perspective of seeing academics in the same light as science, where it should be inherently competitive and confrontational. Ideas need to be rigorously debated and challenged- most people come out more rounded and moderate when their ideas about the world have been challenged (fairly and thoughtfully)
Pulled it out of my arse. That's how the PC gone mad crowd sound to me.
Problem is if you only promote competitiveness and confrontationalism (can you even ism that?), you wind up with a world full of competitive and confrontational folk. Surely it's better for everyone if we listen to the hippies and also promote a bit of a love and compassion. You don't have to be submissive or lose your curiosity if your uni has a room with puppies in it. You don't have to be against the puppy room to want people to challenge ideas. They can both exist in the same world.
You don't take your competitiveness home do you? When your partner cooks a meal you're not going to say "move over love, my egg fried rice is way better than yours." In the same vain, when you go to the puppy room you're not suddenly going to let go of your professional or academic ambitions, you're just enjoying the puppies.
Last edited:
I think I said it early in this thread, political correctness has not gone made, but as is usually the case you will always find people who go mad.
That sound about right?
That sound about right?
Would you not argue that a safe space for people of colour is a support network similarly for LGBT people?
Don't Uni's have individual clubs & societies which include membership and exclusion, all to provide a place for likemindedness and largely has nothing to do with being a more rounded individual?
Wanting a safe space (in my opinion) has nothing to do with being competitive or challenging, they're competing amongst themselves and their peers as part of their coursework and exams. What's wrong with having a sanctuary away from that mindset, particularly if you're far from home.
Again, support groups- fine. Exclusion from other groups based on race, gender or political leaning etc is not something I agree with. It's a bit like the old golf clubs that banned women to be a 'safe space' for rich white men. It's not right.
Uni should be about self improvement, challenging yourself and gaining knowledge. You learn more from nuance and taking a critical approach than you do by surrounding yourself with like-minded people and agreeing all the time. Even if a student wants to waste their learning opportunity, things like no-platforming and coddling wind me up. It just reeks of insecurity to not allow your world view to be challenged.
If you cover your eyes the world is still there, and if you ignore opposing views they will still be there in the real world when you get out there. It is a greater kindness to build a student's resistance to it, while they are still living on their loans etc..
@Silva
Hippies are great, although my ideal world is one where people uphold a moderate form of the non-aggression principle (rather than pacifism). People can disagree and move on with their lives.
We all have different perspectives and learning how others perceive the world is of value, particularly at a key part of a person's development like University. To me, noone should leave Uni thinking they know exactly how the world is- I think we are encouraging a generation to lack nuance and think they have the correct perspective of the world and have learnt they should exclude people who disagree with them. It's not a healthy thing to do.
Because the phrase "kids think they know everything" was only invented to apply to millennials.
Also, at what point does political correctness become overly sensitive and hysterical, but claiming the world's gone mad and a generation are doomed because they say we could do a few things a little differently, become just common sense?
I'm not disagreeing wholesale, there are fair points there, but I also see people in this very thread dismissing ideas like safe spaces or trigger warnings without even really trying to understand them, then saying "the problem with kids these days is they won't accept other people's ideas!" Now obviously this is a hypocrisy on both sides, but you'd think the side banging on about not taking things so seriously, would at least be a tad less, well, serious?
Also, at what point does political correctness become overly sensitive and hysterical, but claiming the world's gone mad and a generation are doomed because they say we could do a few things a little differently, become just common sense?
I'm not disagreeing wholesale, there are fair points there, but I also see people in this very thread dismissing ideas like safe spaces or trigger warnings without even really trying to understand them, then saying "the problem with kids these days is they won't accept other people's ideas!" Now obviously this is a hypocrisy on both sides, but you'd think the side banging on about not taking things so seriously, would at least be a tad less, well, serious?
Last edited:
See, when someone does provide a concrete example of an absurd safe space it's easy to go "Those stupid students, how will they cope in the real world?" unless, of course, you spend a minute or two looking it up. Which would reveal that hobbers is regurgitating the breitbart version of the story that leaves out a detail or two - namely that the safe space was for sexual assault survivors.
And people wonder why some of us think the whole resistance towards them is based on bullshit.
Last edited:
But they banned Christmas!!
We often bemoan young peoples apathy in politics and election - but, when young people do become politically engaged, is it really a surprise that they're going to be on the extreme ends of their political ideology? That's the time in your life when you're exposed to ideologies and it's pretty natural that you're going to take a fairly strong interpretation of one ideology or another. Be it 18 year olds who work 10 hours a week moaning that their taxes are paying for lazy migrants or other 18 year olds wanting to abolish borders completely. Give them space to live a little - it's not like any of you had the exact same views you do now at a young age.
That said, can we please ban Christmas?
That said, can we please ban Christmas?
The problem with this is safe spaces and having the option to avoid all other worldviews means they wont get this exposure.
Unbelievably. free speech is being labelled as a fascist trick. It was once the bedrock of a liberal society.
For an hour or two. By that standard my shed is a safe space.
And, as has been mentioned a few times in this thread it has little to do with free speech overall - otherwise the rules the admins impose on this forum would fall foul to the same standards. Alcoholics Anonymous not wanting a Strongbow representative at their meeting isn't looked down on - why should we look down on LGBT societies not inviting Mike Pence to their meetings?
I'm afraid you've fallen for the half-story told against safe spaces. It's not about avoiding all other world views, it's usually minority groups getting together and breathing a sigh of relief. Or people looking for help and someone who understands their struggle.
Last edited:
I've not fallen for anything and using wild extremes to make your point do not validate it.
Free speech always comes with the proviso of not doing harm - as most decent values do, not blocking debate of opposing views.
The movement fought hard for free speech for decades against fascism. The irony should not be lost on you.
I'm yet to see an actual example of a safe space that isn't a breitbart half story, by the way. Just vague nonsense about how women and minorities are ruining free speech.
Whats wrong with a safe space? I'd love one on here for match days, so as I only have to read positive, uplifting, posts and not moaning, negative ones. A safe space works in essentially the same way, no? Or, have I got it completely wrong?
That would be an example of one, yes.
So if people who feel left out or undermined by society want to group, in a designated area, that is only for them and not be around people who would most likely act in a negative or derogatory way towards them, where is the problem in that?
I'm yet to hear a coherent argument against them. It usually winds up be something to do with the end of free speech (which most of the world has less of than America, where the safe spaces are, anyway).
Coincidentally, there is a safe space when the football forums are in meltdown and you want to avoid them. I'm sure someone will be along in a moment to tell us we shouldn't avoid the doom and gloom when we draw a match.
Also ignores the common "that is reverse racism", "you are the real racist" and "not all men are like that" you would also hear in college discussions.
No idea. It is political correctness gone mad I tell you.
I'm not of course entirely serious and safe spaces relate to a need to protect from bigotry rather than starting from a point of exclusion based on bigotry. Of course it does give fuel to the poor only middle class white bloke who can now complain about being discriminated against.
Last edited:
I might be a bit OTT here but I've always believed that women, LGBT people and minorities have a harder time, just trying to live a normal life, than you're average joe. If they want a place to get together and share experiences away from people who don't understand 'what it's like' then more power to them.
Yes, okay, not every man is a misogynist.
Not every white guy is a racist
and not every straight person is a homophobe but I'd wager they don't really know what it's like to live that particular lifestyle.
Yes, okay, not every man is a misogynist.
Not every white guy is a racist
and not every straight person is a homophobe but I'd wager they don't really know what it's like to live that particular lifestyle.
I wouldn't say I have an easy life and definitely not had a privileged one but I think I could get behind the idea that my life is certainly less complicated by the fact that I'm a straight, white, male. I don't see a problem with saying something like that and certainly have no problem with other people feeling that way.
I totally agree. Sadly many straight, white males think that just because their lives aren't perfect that this means that they are discriminated against.