Has political correctness actually gone mad?

SteveTheRed said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39921804 - McDonalds apologies for "offensive" TV advert

Is this really worthy of an apology? May be I'm not being as empathetic as I should be.

Quotes like "trying to insinuate that a brand can cure all ills with one meal is insensitive"... if anyone has watched the advert and thinks it's trying to say a bloody big mac can make you forget about your dead dad you're a nutter.
Click to expand...
Hate that advert and it's on every time. It's about as subtle as a sledgehammer.
 
You can't even compliment a bird now for having nice tits without people saying it's sexist.
 
s-l300.jpg
 
crappycraperson said:
Read more about this here - http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/05/transracialism-article-controversy.html

It even has its own wiki entry now - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypatia_transracialism_controversy

Hopefully episodes like this will teach left liberals the value of free speech and the danger of outrage.
Click to expand...

Jesus wept. Looks like the price of progress is far too many people spending far too much time getting far too worked up about stuff that really doesn't matter. Nobody had time for any of this shit when we were all working in factories.
 
Swaters16 said:
You think he should be kicked out of uni for quoting the bible on facebook?
Click to expand...
Red_toad said:
Why would it make him unfit? He's quoting from the bible, his beliefs don't mean they will affect his professional ethics.
Click to expand...

I didn't put a huge amount of thought into it but basically yes.
Kicking him out is harsh, but failing him for expressing that he thinks theres something wrong with homosexuality because 'the bible says so' seems reasonable.
(im paraphrasing a paraphrasse at this point so not going to pretend this is a great argument)
 
hobbers said:
I've not read the background but presumably at the moment he's only looking to qualify with a degree in social work.

There's also an endless number of jobs where performance could be impacted by personal belief. Social work in particular cannot afford to be choosy,
they need every last soul they can get. Especially if those souls happen to be good hearted Christians.

Would it be right to turf out all the nurses and doctors who hold similar views, for a start?
Click to expand...

Nurses and Doctors aren't working on patients mental health, if they can stitch you up they've done their job
Social workers are working with the mental wellbeing of vulnerable clients and propagating the idea that theres anything morally or ethically unhealthy with homosexuality
is a damaging one and is an idea that should disqualify them from social work.
Hes not a good hearted christian anyway, hes a judgemental bigot. Social work in particular needs to be choosy
 
hobbers said:
Peterson's debate with Harris was excellent.

He was also on the Rubin Report the other day, was just listening to it in the car.
Click to expand...

JBP is incredible. I've listened to/watched almost everything that's out there on his YouTube channel. Blows my mind every time.
 
caid said:
Nurses and Doctors aren't working on patients mental health, if they can stitch you up they've done their job
Social workers are working with the mental wellbeing of vulnerable clients and propagating the idea that theres anything morally or ethically unhealthy with homosexuality
is a damaging one and is an idea that should disqualify them from social work.
Hes not a good hearted christian anyway, hes a judgemental bigot. Social work in particular needs to be choosy
Click to expand...

Hmmm... Doctors and nurses who specialise in mental health would disagree with you on that point. I used to be one of them.

Christian values can impact on lots of different aspects of healthcare anyway. What about a GP who is asked to prescribe the morning after pill? Or a gynaecologist who is asked to terminate a pregnancy?

I actually agree that any healthcare practitioner who lets their faith impact on the care that they offer to patients is doing a bad job but I also think they should be allowed to hold opinions like this bloke so long as they don't let them get in the way of doing a good job. Which is definitely possible.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Hmmm... Doctors and nurses who specialise in mental health would disagree with you on that point. I used to be one of them.

Christian values can impact on lots of different aspects of healthcare anyway. What about a GP who is asked to prescribe the morning after pill? Or a gynaecologist who is asked to terminate a pregnancy?

I actually agree that any healthcare practitioner who lets their faith impact on the care that they offer to patients is doing a bad job but I also think they should be allowed to hold opinions like this bloke so long as they don't let them get in the way of doing a good job. Which is definitely possible.
Click to expand...

Yes, I guess i would normally be specific about them.
I would've thought if they started specifying their beliefs while treating their patient it would be frowned upon lets just say.

This guy putting his viiews forth in a facebook discussion basically kills my point really,
same with the college throwing him off the course rather than just failing him or just distancing themselves from the viewpoint
Its a viewpoint i'd take a distinctly dim view of for someone involved in that field.

It has to be open for discussion though, you need to be open with things like that and debate the point on its own merits (i dont think it has any)
and give people the opportunity to have their views changed, if they cant express their opinion then you cant change it.
So the college acted poorly

If a christian GP is asked to provide the morning after pill to a patient and its legal for them to seek and use it, then i think he should be required to provide it.
Its not his job to decide on the morality of it. I dont think its his job to provide an opinion on the matter either
 
Last edited:
caid said:
Yes, I guess i would normally be specific about them.
I would've thought if they started specifying their beliefs while treating their patient it would be frowned upon lets just say.

This guy putting his viiews forth in a facebook discussion basically kills my point really,
same with the college throwing him off the course rather than just failing him or just distancing themselves from the viewpoint
Its a viewpoint i'd take a distinctly dim view of for someone involved in that field.

It has to be open for discussion though, you need to be open with things like that and debate the point on its own merits (i dont think it has any)
and give people the opportunity to have their views changed, if they cant express their opinion then you cant change it.
So the college acted poorly
Click to expand...

Yer man's an idiot for not thinking about the potential consequences of posting stuff like that on facebook while training to be a social worker tbf. A better outcome would have been him eventually getting weeded out on the basis of being thick!
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Yer man's an idiot for not thinking about the potential consequences of posting stuff like that on facebook while training to be a social worker tbf. A better outcome would have been him eventually getting weeded out on the basis of being thick!
Click to expand...

Yeah ... maybe.
I dunno, I'm not inclined to take things on facebook / twitter / random forums too seriously
But thats not how its treated, it was definitely naive
 
hobbers said:
Yeah he's shown me that there are psychology classes that are actually worth taking. Can listen to him deconstructing Pinocchio and Harry Potter all day baby.
Click to expand...

He has definitely made me look at my own life and the way I view the world from another perspective.
 
Jippy said:
Bit of a hop, step and a jump to get to 'perpetuating rape culture'.
Click to expand...
It doesn't. It's pressuring young boys to conform to male stereotypes, though. Nothing out of the ordinary, of course, there is gender pressure everywhere you look in advertising - as it's a very effective way of selling stuff - but still... it should feck off.
 
PedroMendez said:
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpres...quality-peer-reviewed-social-science-journal/

:lol: it's science bitch.
Click to expand...

I tried to but couldn't find the journal's impact factor - they haven't released it and Our Lord Google doesn't have it on the front page. It charges the author $1,350 for every article published. It doesn't seem to show up in SSRN, which Lord Google says is the Pubmed equivalent for social science.
In other words, they should've tried this in a slightly better journal if they wanted to go for the "rot in the field" angle (which I'm sure exists to an extent). But with just this, they've basically just got a "new open access is a money-making racket".

Edit: the fact they could get through under a fictitious name and institute is another hallmark of this breed of open-access.
So far the only truly trustworthy ones have been PloS and maybe (in bio) eLife (though I've spent the last 2 weeks trying unsuccessfully to replicate findings from an eLife paper from a famous author). I do like eLife because they publish reviewer's comments and authors' response with the article. (decision letter in the link)

Edit2: At 1st glance their editorial board looks competent from some known universities. However, the 1st senior editor is a lecturer in tourism. Though the 2nd and 3rd people look credible. So it's not a fully sham journal.
 
Last edited:
DiseaseOfTheAge said:
It doesn't. It's pressuring young boys to conform to male stereotypes, though. Nothing out of the ordinary, of course, there is gender pressure everywhere you look in advertising - as it's a very effective way of selling stuff - but still... it should feck off.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't classify rape culture as a male stereotype, more a male cultural trait abhorred by any rightminded male.
 
@PedroMendez

This is courtesy of @Bacon apologist in the newbs. I might not approve of his username but I approve of this article :p

Why the “Conceptual Penis” Hoax is Just a Big Cock Up.

After the revelation that a paper on “The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct” was submitted as a hoax to the journal Cogent Social Sciences there’s sure to be a lot of merriment at the expense of Gender Studies departments. But it turns out that the joke’s on the hoaxers themselves–both for failing to spot some very obvious red flags about this “journal,” and for their rather bizarre leaps of logic.


In brief, two academics, Peter Bognossian and James Lindsay, submitted an obviously silly article to a journal Cogent Social Studies. It was accepted after what seems to be very cursory peer review, and, from this, they’re claiming that the entire field of Gender Studies “is crippled academically by an overriding almost-religious belief that maleness is the root of all evil.”

It might be. But their hoax gives us absolutely no reason to believe this. First, let’s look at the “journal” that they were accepted at. Like all the digital, open-access journals run by Cogent (a house most people have never heard of before now) it charges authors fees to publish. No reputable journal in the humanities does this. Worse yet, it allows authors to “pay what they can”. This appears to signal that this journal publishes work from authors who can’t get institutional support to publish in it. (Or, if they could, don’t seek this as they would prefer it not be widely known that they’re paying to publish.) The journal boasts also that it is very “friendly” to authors (a clear sign of a suspect outlet) and notes that it doesn’t necessarily reject things that might not have any impact. (!) It also only uses single blind review. The whole thing just screams vanity journal.

Now, the hoaxers are aware of all of this. But they try to duck the “facile” objection that they submitted to a junk journal by noting that it’s part of the Taylor and Francis group, and that it’s “held out as a high-quality open-access journal by the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)”. Yet even a quick perusal of the journal’s website makes it clear that it operates entirely independently of Taylor & Francis, and that its publishing model is utterly different to theirs. And the DOAJ is a “community run” agency with (it seems) no official standing–and whose express criteria for something being a peer-reviewed journal with quality control is that it “must exercise peer-review with an editor and an editorial board or editorial review…. carried out by at least two editors”. As far as I know, most vanity presses meet this very minimal standard.

Having managed to pay for a paper to be published in a deeply suspect journal the hoaxers then conclude that the entire field of Gender Studies is suspect. How they made this deductive leap is actually far more puzzling than how the paper got accepted. (It’s thus more than a bit embarrassing that one of them’s a philosophy professor–who, ironically, teaches critical thinking.) I’ve no doubt that there are many things to criticize about Gender Studies. But that a suspect journal published a hoax paper whose topics was gender studies-ish isn’t one of them.

UPDATE: The first journal that Bognossian and Lindsay submitted their hoax paper to, and that rejected it, was NORMA: The International Journal for Masculinity Studies. This journal doesn’t even hit the top 115 journals in Gender Studies. So, what happened here was that they submitted a hoax paper to an unranked journal, which summarily rejected it. They then received an auto-generated response directing them to a pay-to-publish vanity journal. They submitted the paper there, and it was published. From this chain of events they conclude that the entire field of Gender Studies is “crippled academically”. This tells us very little about Gender Studies, but an awful lot about the perpetrators of this “hoax”…. and those who tout it as a take down of an entire field.
Click to expand...
http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2017/05/conceptual-penis-hoax-just-big-cock/


Edit: I think this is (to invoke existentialism :D) in bad faith by the 2 professors. The fact it was rejected by a good journal and accepted by a shit one is the story. The same has happened in hard science with the new open-access journals too, so it has nothing to do with pomo or the degeneracy of social sciences.
The current publishing system is a complete failure. Traditional journal articles cost >35$/article for individual access, and even universities with multimillion dollar endowments struggle to get institutional access for all of them. This makes science inaccessible for >99% of people (who are paying for it) including students in most 3rd world countries.

Predatory OA journals cost >1k/article for publishing, which immediately provides a bad incentive for publishing. This is coupled with the incentive to have a publication to show your grant review and to have open access to possible boost citations.

Of course (as with every other problem) the underlying illness is capitalism ;)
 
Last edited:
Earlier in this thread I remember saying no, but I live and have always lived in small towns, so my experience with the extreme left has been minimal, and the nutters online I've considered as just nutters. But God damn me, looking over more social networks online and policies, it's gone way, way too far.
You can't do anything without offending someone (or worse, offend by proxy)...
 
Think I'm still thread banned from Lingards thread for calling one of his passes 'retarded'.

fecking these days...
 
http://www.barstoolsports.com/dmv/b...arned-how-to-make-better-tortillas-in-mexico/

Burrito Shop Bullied Into Shutting Down Because The Owners Learned How To Make Better Tortillas In Mexico

Wow, look how happy they are with their burritos! I bet a lot of people love them….NOT SO FAST!!!!

Heat St - Kali Wilgus and Liz “LC” Connelly, owners of Portland pop-up shop Kooks Burritos, just wanted to make and sell some really great burritos. So when they were on a trip to Puerto Nuevo, Mexico, they “picked the brains” of the local tortilla ladies and brought those recipes back to the States.

“I picked the brains of every tortilla lady there in the worst broken Spanish ever, and they showed me a little of what they did,” Connelly told Willamette Weekly. “They told us the basic ingredients, and we saw them moving and stretching the dough similar to how pizza makers do before rolling it out with rolling pins. They wouldn’t tell us too much about technique, but we were peeking into the windows of every kitchen, totally fascinated by how easy they made it look. We learned quickly it isn’t quite that easy.”

Whelp, apparently this interview sparked an Internet shitstorm, which ended in Kooks Burritos shutting down and the two white women who owned it scrubbing social media of the business’ existence.

Wilgus and Connelly were accused of cultural appropriation by the Internet mob, and even the theft of PoC’s recipes.


“Now that you all boldly and pretty fecking unapologetically stole the basis of these women’s livelihoods, you can make their exact same product so other white ppl don’t have to be inconvenienced dealing with a pesky brown middle woman getting in their way,” wrote a woman in the interview’s comment section.

The company’s Yelp reviews are flooded with one-star reviews from the PC police, using terms like “white mediocrity” and “Latinx” while comparing Kooks Burritos to colonialism.

What a story. Two ladies go to Mexico to learn how to make better burritos, tell a newspaper about their experiences, and get shamed and bullied until they are forced to shut down. All because they just wanted to make a better tortilla. And it’s not like they set up surveillance at the competing burrito shop around the corner. They picked the brains of some nice folks 4,000 miles away, across the border. All to help their customers in Portland….and they were harassed and bullied because of it. If cultural appropriation is real, this is certainly the opposite of it.


I guess this will teach everyone a lesson- don’t try to get better at what you do. Stay complacent, stay average, and never aspire to be better. If you do, white hippies will yell at you and force you out of business.

PS: This is the trade off for living in the Pacific Northwest. You work 5 hour days, everyone smokes pot and is really laid back, but the SJWs are the plague. You can’t even stop to tie your shoe without being yelled at for appropriating cobbler culture.
Click to expand...
 
You can't steal anything these days.
 
Come to think of it the word filter for feck is making half the caf guilty of cultural appropriation. I won't stand for it.
 
Jippy said:
Bit of a hop, step and a jump to get to 'perpetuating rape culture'.

Mum's anger over 'offensive' £4 Asda jumper for kids
She argued that the wording perpetuates rape culture


Asda.jpg


http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/mums-anger-over-offensive-4-10440491
Click to expand...

'Boys will be boys' or 'Men will be men' was historically often used to excuse sexual assault and rape. It's up there with 'she was asking for it' in terms of unpleasantness. Entire generations of women right up to the 70s/80s had to deal with frequent unwanted sexual groping and intimidation and the standard response if they tried to complain would be 'men will be men'.
 
Kentonio said:
'Boys will be boys' or 'Men will be men' was historically often used to excuse sexual assault and rape. It's up there with 'she was asking for it' in terms of unpleasantness. Entire generations of women right up to the 70s/80s had to deal with frequent unwanted sexual groping and intimidation and the standard response if they tried to complain would be 'men will be men'.
Click to expand...
Has it? I've heard that phrased used in so many different scenarios not relating to sexual groping or intimidation. I think it's a bit of a stretch to say the phrase "Boys will be boys" is equivalent or up there with "She was asking for it" which is only used in one scenario.
 
Kentonio said:
'Boys will be boys' or 'Men will be men' was historically often used to excuse sexual assault and rape. It's up there with 'she was asking for it' in terms of unpleasantness. Entire generations of women right up to the 70s/80s had to deal with frequent unwanted sexual groping and intimidation and the standard response if they tried to complain would be 'men will be men'.
Click to expand...
Agree with @SteveTheRed i wouldn't liken it 'she was asking for it', which puts the blame directly on the woman. I'd link more to mischievous children than anything more sinister tbh.
 
When I was a kid in the 70's it was mostly mothers saying this about their own male children's talent for getting up to mischief, especially fighting with each other.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.