Has political correctness actually gone mad?

I wonder if people are statistically offended more by random stuff or simply that with the likes of Twitter there is now more of a platform for them to air it.
 
CassiusClaymore said:
I wonder if people are statistically offended more by random stuff or simply that with the likes of Twitter there is now more of a platform for them to air it.
Click to expand...
Definitely the latter. With Twitter people share every thought that pops into their head, when before they would have forgotten about it before they got to a pen to write a letter of complaint.
 
You realise that only 75 people have liked the facebook post complaining about the ad, and in the article in the Telegraph, only one of the tweets had been re-tweeted by more than ten people. This thread refers just as much to the fact that the media blow up these stories, knowing they'll sell. It's hardly a major incident that a few people, somewhere in the world, are outraged by something completely banal.
 
ThierryHenry said:
You realise that only 75 people have liked the facebook post complaining about the ad, and in the article in the Telegraph, only one of the tweets had been re-tweeted by more than ten people. This thread refers just as much to the fact that the media blow up these stories, knowing they'll sell. It's hardly a major incident that a few people, somewhere in the world, are outraged by something completely banal.
Click to expand...
Yeah. These stories often seem to be a lot of people getting offended at the fact a very small number of people were offended by something.
 
Iron Stove said:
Twitter has ruined everything.
Click to expand...
As soon as TV shows started asking people to Tweet them what they were thinking, I had a feeling shit like this would happen somewhere down the line. This isn't even the worst of it, either. Those fecking campaigns you hear about on Twitter where the most clueless people in the world start a witch hunt against someone who has offended one of their fellow morons.
 
Its a minority but they are so loud and vitriolic they can actually make these companies censor themselves.
 
ThierryHenry said:
You realise that only 75 people have liked the facebook post complaining about the ad, and in the article in the Telegraph, only one of the tweets had been re-tweeted by more than ten people. This thread refers just as much to the fact that the media blow up these stories, knowing they'll sell. It's hardly a major incident that a few people, somewhere in the world, are outraged by something completely banal.
Click to expand...

Yeah, exactly. It was hardly a full blown apology by Three either - a reply in the comments section of Facebook. I kind of think that people who get overly agitated at SJWs are a bit like people who get really mad about Westboro Baptist Church. There are always gonna be a handful of nutters out there, modern media just gives them a chance to reach a wider audience.
 
soap said:
Yeah, exactly. It was hardly a full blown apology by Three either - a reply in the comments section of Facebook. I kind of think that people who get overly agitated at SJWs are a bit like people who get really mad about Westboro Baptist Church. There are always gonna be a handful of nutters out there, modern media just gives them a chance to reach a wider audience.
Click to expand...
That does my head in. They are fecking tiny and they get so much attention, just because they say appalling things. As a world society, we really need to get better at ignoring insignificant pillocks.
 
Jon Ronson was on Joe Rogan last week and it's a good listen(Goes into some of the stuff mentioned in here)


DiseaseOfTheAge said:
That does my head in. They are fecking tiny and they get so much attention, just because they say appalling things. As a world society, we really need to get better at ignoring insignificant pillocks.
Click to expand...
Agree. If we just ignored people like Katy Hoppinks(Or newspapers like The Sun/Daily Mail) they would quickly go away.

I would say it's a bit different with the westboro baptist church. As they actively go out of their away to be disgusting(Although they have every right to do so)protesting with those signs at people funerals particularly funerals of service men and women. So I can see why people struggle to ignore it.
 
Last edited:
DiseaseOfTheAge said:
That does my head in. They are fecking tiny and they get so much attention, just because they say appalling things. As a world society, we really need to get better at ignoring insignificant pillocks.
Click to expand...
Much like various groups of Muslim extremists whose views are published and supposed to represent some sort of majority.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
If making signs saying "God Hates Fags" was the extent of the harm done by muslim extremists they would be a lot easier to ignore, that's for sure.
Click to expand...
I was thinking more of the various religious leaders whose quotes are disseminated throughout the media as representing some sort of communal norm.

Having said that, one just needs to remember the large-scale bombing of innocent populations in the Middle East by a country whose president said he used to talk with God -- a Christian extremist to be sure.
 
Ebooe said:
Only in the most absurdly reductionist framework. What large scale bombing are we talking about again?
Click to expand...
Indeed, the sort of reductionist framework which is routinely applied to Muslims -- both equally absurd. Iraq, mainly.
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
Indeed, the sort of reductionist framework which is routinely applied to Muslims -- both equally absurd. Iraq, mainly.
Click to expand...

No, not at all equally. Muslim extremists attack those with religious differences and then point to religious texts as justification. The bush administration didn't send Colin Powell to the UN with a bible.

It's a really bad comparison.
 
Ebooe said:
No, not at all equally. Muslim extremists attack those with religious differences and then point to religious texts as justification. The bush administration didn't send Colin Powell to the UN with a bible.

It's a really bad comparison.
Click to expand...

But Bush did use Christian values as a sort of justification for war in Iraq.
 
Ebooe said:
No
Click to expand...
He claimed God spoke to him.
'I am driven with a mission from God'. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did."
Click to expand...

Sure, I'm being obtuse, but playing devil's advocate you could easily build a case.

The point I'm making is that it's wrong to view the extremist minority as representative of the majority. The Bush thing is a bit of a tangent tbh.
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
He claimed God spoke to him.

Sure, I'm being obtuse, but playing devil's advocate you could easily build a case.

The point I'm making is that it's wrong to view the extremist minority as representative of the majority. The Bush thing is a bit of a tangent tbh.
Click to expand...


A senior White House official has denied that the US president, George Bush, said God ordered him to invade Afghanistan and Iraq.
A spokesman for Mr Bush, Scott McClellan, said the claims, to be broadcast in a TV documentary later this month, were "absurd".
Click to expand...
 
Can it be believed? We have calls out to Professor Römer and to the Protestant Federation of France. I'll report back if or when they get back to us. But Römer story was published in the Lausanne University magazine in 2007, and looks perfectly credible there. It was repeated independently in a French book of interviews with Chirac this spring. I'm certainly inclined to believe it myself: it makes as much sense as anything else about Bush's policy in Iraq.
Click to expand...

People quite often believe such things attributed to Muslim fanatics when the evidence is just as circumstantial.
 
I've moved away from the original point -- the fallacy of supposing extremist minorities to represent a communal norm. Perhaps the Ku Klux Klan might serve as a better equivalent to one of the Muslim extremist groups. The KKK aren't representative of the average American Christian, just as ISIS aren't representative of the average Middle Eastern Muslim.

Although I do think a case could be made for Bush being a religious extremist, it's merely dependent upon the definition of religious extremism. Obviously you don't agree, which is fair enough.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Bush is a buffoon but even he wouldn't be dumb enough to say something like that out loud, no matter what his private thoughts might be on the matter.
Click to expand...

Big call there.

And born again religious loons like him have a tendency to want to over-share.
 
I hope I'm not too late to participate and it hasn't progressed too far off to other topics. With regards to the topic at hand, I must say it really has gone mad. At least the way it is being done today.

Some examples of the ridiculousness of political correctness these days:-

a) A scientist successfully sends a probe into space to land on a comet and instead of celebrating this grand human achievement, we're obsessed over his t-shirt and he winds up crying apologizing for wearing said t-shirt. Nearly lost his job too. Is this relevant or proportionate? Does it make sense?

b) A man makes a joke about "dongles" in private to his friend during a conference and the woman sitting in front of him stands up, takes a picture of him and shames him on twitter by declaring him a sexist pig and asking the world to punish him. The tweeter storm is so big, the guy loses his job. Because he made a joke about "dongles". In private. Which she eavesdropped and became offended enough to shame him publicly.

c) A guy questions/criticizes a feminist on youtube. She declares him a rapist and trying to rape her online.

d) A university student council (or was it university official?) organizes a conference against racism and bans white people from attending. Declaring it a "safe space".

e) Another university student council (or was it official?) tweets about wanting to murder white men and declares it is appropriate because she is the minority and therefore cannot be racist.

f) Ayaan Hirsi Ali's invitation to speak at a university being revoked because she was "islamophobic and a bigot". Excuse me, Islam is not a people. Neither is she advocating violence. I cannot say the same for ISIS.

g) A museum was forced to abandon it's japanese themed event which was organized by a Japanese company which offered visitors a kimono to wear and a briefing with pamphlets explaining the kimono. Apparently this is "orientalism" and is therefore racist. The japanese in said japanese company surely didn't see that coming.

The examples highlighted above are real life incidents. I kid you not. These issues are wrong on so many levels.

1) It is tantamount to enforcing morality
2) It is censorship
3) Is it even relevant? To be bitching about a man's t-shirt when there are women being harmed by revenge porn? Or women still being endangered by female genital mutilation? Or black people still disproportionately suffering from the war on drugs?
4) Freedom from offence IS NOT a human right
5) Being anti white or anti male or anti whatever IS NOT equivalent to upholding minority/female/etc rights
6) Is it even proportionate? It's just a fecking t-shirt. Is it worth losing a job over? Or public humiliation over?

Our focus should be on reducing harm.
Equal rights.
Equal opportunity.
Freedom of choice.

If a woman decides to pose naked on playboy, power to her. If a woman decides to wear a hijab, power to her as well. As long as we don't harm another person, everyone should have freedom to live their lives as they see fit.

Our focus should be about enabling that. Not on offence. Want to talk about offence? I'm offended that these idiots think they have a right to not be offended. That's what I think. Does that mean they must now all shut the feck up? Lose their jobs? Banned from twitter/youtube/facebook? Where do we draw the line? Who's morality should take priority over everyone else's?

Have we all gone mad?

Just my 2 cents worth. Sorry for the wall of text. It's been building up for awhile. I just had to get this off my chest.
 
Last edited:
Mciahel Goodman said:
I've moved away from the original point -- the fallacy of supposing extremist minorities to represent a communal norm. Perhaps the Ku Klux Klan might serve as a better equivalent to one of the Muslim extremist groups. The KKK aren't representative of the average American Christian, just as ISIS aren't representative of the average Middle Eastern Muslim.

Although I do think a case could be made for Bush being a religious extremist, it's merely dependent upon the definition of religious extremism. Obviously you don't agree, which is fair enough.
Click to expand...

The problem here though is that the KKK are not in control of half of the southern states of the US. I understand the point you are trying to make but your example highlights the difference which is scale. That isis isn't the majority opinion isn't in question but how big and powerful a minority view is it? Clearly it is a larger and more powerful minority in the middle east now than the KKK is in the US.

Also as an atheist it always amuses me when people try to parse a sensible difference between how crazy one religious belief is compared to another. Once you accept people being brought back from the dead, ascension into heaven on a winged horse etc the rest is semantics. That is why I think all religion is a dangerous concept.

Or put it another way, there is as much evidence that Isis is correct about what god wants as there is about more acceptable versions of mainstream religious beliefs. They are all based on faith without question on doctrine which is without any evidence.
 
tombombadil said:
I hope I'm not too late to participate and it hasn't progressed too far off to other topics. With regards to the topic at hand, I must say it really has gone mad. At least the way it is being done today.

Some examples of the ridiculousness of political correctness these days:-

a) A scientist successfully sends a probe into space to land on a comet and instead of celebrating this grand human achievement, we're obsessed over his t-shirt and he winds up crying apologizing for wearing said t-shirt. Nearly lost his job too. Is this relevant or proportionate? Does it make sense?

b) A man makes a joke about "dongles" in private to his friend during a conference and the woman sitting in front of him stands up, takes a picture of him and shames him on twitter by declaring him a sexist pig and asking the world to punish him. The tweeter storm is so big, the guy loses his job. Because he made a joke about "dongles". In private. Which she eavesdropped and became offended enough to shame him publicly.

c) A guy questions/criticizes a feminist on youtube. She declares him a rapist and trying to rape her online.

d) A university student council (or was it university official?) organizes a conference against racism and bans white people from attending. Declaring it a "safe space".

e) Another university student council (or was it official?) tweets about wanting to murder white men and declares it is appropriate because she is the minority and therefore cannot be racist.

f) Ayaan Hirsi Ali's invitation to speak at a university being revoked because she was "islamophobic and a bigot". Excuse me, Islam is not a people. Neither is she advocating violence. I cannot say the same for ISIS.

g) A museum was forced to abandon it's japanese themed event which was organized by a Japanese company which offered visitors a kimono to wear and a briefing with pamphlets explaining the kimono. Apparently this is "orientalism" and is therefore racist. The japanese in said japanese company surely didn't see that coming.

The examples highlighted above are real life incidents. I kid you not. These issues are wrong on so many levels.

1) It is tantamount to enforcing morality
2) It is censorship
3) Is it even relevant? To be bitching about a man's t-shirt when there are women being harmed by revenge porn? Or women still being endangered by female genital mutilation? Or black people still disproportionately suffering from the war on drugs?
4) Freedom from offence IS NOT a human right
5) Being anti white or anti male or anti whatever IS NOT equivalent to upholding minority/female/etc rights
6) Is it even proportionate? It's just a fecking t-shirt. Is it worth losing a job over? Or public humiliation over?

Our focus should be on reducing harm.
Equal rights.
Equal opportunity.
Freedom of choice.

If a woman decides to pose naked on playboy, power to her. If a woman decides to wear a hijab, power to her as well. As long as we don't harm another person, everyone should have freedom to live their lives as they see fit.

Our focus should be about enabling that. Not on offence. Want to talk about offence? I'm offended that these idiots think they have a right to not be offended. That's what I think. Does that mean they must now all shut the feck up? Lose their jobs? Banned from twitter/youtube/facebook? Where do we draw the line? Who's morality should take priority over everyone else's?

Have we all gone mad?

Just my 2 cents worth. Sorry for the wall of text. It's been building up for awhile. I just had to get this off my chest.
Click to expand...
Interesting examples. Have you read the rest of this thread? I havent read it all but a couple of pages back @Pogue Mahone and @Mockney had an interesting conversation about whether and to what extent this responsibility for all this lies with self righteous, online Twitter mobs, and the increasing power they wield. Basically, you can make the case that in most or all the above examples, the issue was either someone fell foul of such mob rule (a, b and c are good examples) or an institution was wary of doing so (f and g in particular).

I thought it was a very interesting debate. I might remember it wrong but I think in essence it was about Pogue saying this is something relatively new and therefore Twitter (social media generally really) is driving this "madness", while Mockney, I think, is more of the opinion that it was ever thus, that Twitter is just a new incarnation of a much older phenomenon of herd mentality. Maybe I am misrepresenting their arguments a bit. But its worth going back and reading it if you havent.

(FWIW I can see both of these positions but tend to agree with Pogue this is something new, maybe not the underlying emotion or tendency, but the increased opportunity / scale of Twitter makes it a different thing, in much the same way as guns are more or less the same concept as bows and arrows, but clearly this technological advance had considerable consequences in the history of warfare.)

I agree with your general premise though, about reducing harm. Its not black and white though. Someone I love very dearly is quite active in anti sexism campaigning. What you or I might perceive as fairly harmless, passing the "does it harm?" test, she sees as insidious and directly responsible for enduring attitudes that hold women back in the workplace, lead to them being underpaid, increasing incidents of violence against women and a whole range of other very serious and tangible concerns. Im sure a lot of these Twitter mobs are populated by people who would agree with your reducing harm goal, its just they would define harm differently.
 
To be honest, I haven't read much, maybe glanced through the last two pages before I posted. I just had all this pent up steam that I needed to release somewhere so I posted immediately. Sorry if that feels out of place.

To me, whether this is new or not is beside the point, really (though I tend to agree with Pogue. Social media has allowed the mob a cheap and easy way to .... well .... mob). The fact is, real harm is being done by these people and even real feminists have been speaking up against these social justice warriors, as they are concerned that their work would be undone by these people. Take unequal pay, for example. That is a favorite bone to chew on for pseudo feminists. It's not true. Statistical analysis has shown that, at least in the west, salaries are roughly on par between men and women. These types of arguments which are based on hot air makes any sort of progress for women impossible, because they end up discrediting their own cause.

I'm glad you're leaning in agreement with some of what I say, but I think there are enough clear cut areas which we can all agree on, like how shaming a man publicly to the point of him losing his job just because someone eavesdropped him making a joke in private about "dongles" IS NOT justice for women. For your sake, I hope your loved one can at least see this point and if not, I sincerely hope you managed to turn her around.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.