political correctness, what do you think about it?
It's gone mad.
It's gone a little too far. I mean, really- it's at the point where you can't even say 'Merry Christmas' without people freaking out. I get that Christmas is the celebration of one particular religion, but shouldn't the feeling behind it count the most?
I agree with #4. It has gone way beyond reason. Besides, I get the feeling only white people have to be politically correct. Well, I'm not. I say what I want to say, whenever I want to say it. If there's a git who takes me seriously whenever I make some stupid comment, that's not my problem.
Where I live political correctness is getting out of control. It mostly affects comedians, one particular where a comedian was zeroed out because he 'laughed' with the holocaust... He was apprently a jew hater... I've seen his show and the only joke even remotely related to jews was for what they were wearing (you know, hats with curls and stuff).
Never once did he even mention the word 'holocaust' but that's what' normal today. You can't laugh with anything anymore, not with minorities, not with majorities not with anything.
People don't seem to realise that by setting a certain group of people as 'off-limits' so to speak they just draw more attention to them. Said comedian said so himself 'When people tell me: "Alex, you're allowed to ridicule those nine people over there as much as you like but the tenth one is off limits." What do you think I'm going to do?'
Wow, much longer then I had expected it to be
Sigh Oh dear, looks like everyone is with you Daily Mail...
pc generally keeps everyone in check so I'm ok with it
'In check' regarding what?
Probably that not everyone starts being incredibly racist all the time. But really, there's common sense too. What ever happened to being serious when you have to be and just joke about everything and anything the rest of the time?
I partially disagree with folks here. I think respect for others' differences, especially those who have traditionally been discriminated against, is a good thing, and there is still a lot of discriminatory attitudes in mainstream society. I don't think stressing the importance of respect can be underestimated.
On the other hand, there are people in the media (both on the left on the right) who make their living by being what I call 'professionally offended.' They're the ones who raise hysterical fusses about petty comments, and unfortunately often the whole 'p.c.' debate usually gets focussed on them, rather than what is really important.
Exactly. If people were more responsible, then Political Correctness would not exist. Unfortunately, people are rude, ignorant and stupid, and often jokes are an badly disguised way of them simply abusing people and/or emphasising crude stereotypes.
Want a lack of PC and freedom to say what you want? Go to the youtube comment section. We all know how fun that is.
Plus, the complaint that PC is directed mostly at white people. History cannot be ignored, and certain things take a while before we can even begin to laugh at them. And the sad truth is, ethnic minorities have had to put up with a lot of shit for generations. It's going to take time before you can laugh about certain things or make certain jokes.
Like I said originally, we have people that, like >>11 says, get hysterical over any little thing, but we are simply getting the balance right. It hasn't 'gone mad.' It's just another part of a developing diverse culture learning to get along and have mutual respect.
True history can't be ignored. And it's true that minorities take on most of the shit that get spewed around.
But when PC is applied I expect it to be applied to all equally.
Random example from my country.
Political party tries to put a stop to mass immigration. Other political parties sue them for racism.
Random fundamentalist group shows up, starts yelling about how we western people are dogs that are to be killed or converted to their beliefs. They're trying to get people to join their 'noble cause' and overthrow society. Same political parties as before claim them to be 'just a harmless minority'.
An odd example perhaps but I think it fits.
And again I reach to my favorite comedian. It's okay to laugh with people. To me that's the most normal thing in the world. Some of those jokes can be offensive, racist or whatever else. But that's where it ends. But calling out to commit violence or likewise on people, majority or minority is too much, then is political correctness is to be applied. Remove people like those from society.
TL;DR
People on both sides need to grow thicker skin and stop whining about small things like jokes.
Sorry if I offend anyone with my statements but that's my opinion
What is political correctness, anyway? Is it when you're not allowed to be discriminatory about other people? Or is it that you're supposed to ignore or put aside differences between you and others? I honestly don't think so. I think political correctness has become a primary-school boy getting punished for calling a Polish friend a 'NAZI' while playing, people being scolded or cold-shouldered for making a joke between friends, and year eights being made to feel guilty about the slave trade...which we abolished.
Big Brother is watching you.....
"...year eights being made to feel guilty about the slave trade...which we abolished."
Wow.
Well, the thing you said about the year eights... it reminds me of our French president who said something along those lines: Every little French boy/girl will now have to bear the memory of one little Jew who died during the Holocaust.
No matter how horrible it was, to have kids bearing that weight is not a good thing in my opinion.
Also, there are things... I mean, in Europe (at least France and Switzerland), we "can" make fun of the Pope - not that everyone agrees with it...
Kadhafi wants to set a Holy War or whatever against Switzerland because a referendum prevented the constructions of 'minarets', though there are mosque.
There are many examples and people are taking it a bit far.
I don't recall who said it but: We can laugh at/make fun of everything - just not with anyone.
I couldn't personally care less about political correctness. I believe what I believe and if anyone's offended by it that's on them. Besides, I don't get why it's so offensive to say God's name, and to oppose gay/lesbian stuff and that's so HORRIBLE, and it's so OFFENSIVE to say that, but maybe I'm offended by the people who say the opposite. THEY don't get told that they're being offensive. So I think that you should be free to say what you believe, as long as you say it up front, that way it's whoever read its own fault if they're offended, as they had the option not to read it in the first place. (By the way, for the record, I don't support Obama, I'm against abortion, I think gay/lesbian is wrong, and I'm a Christian. Yay for "Political Correctness")
XP Oh, I'm not trying to be a jerk, just I don't know how to say it any other way)
@17- Care to elaborate on why you feel another person's sexual preference is any of your business?
Because being gay/lesbian is wrong.
>>19 Well you see, that's what's called an opinion, which not everybody shares. For example, I too am a Christian and against abortion, but I don't have anything against homosexual people.
@19- Would you care to elaborate on why it is wrong?
>>19 What makes it wrong? Because the Bible says so? Then what are all those priests doing molesting little boys?
Well, everyone is entitled to have their own opinion, right? (Should my grandma go on a rant against a potential tattoo, I just accept her rant - and would still get that tattoo, because that's my skin.^^)
However, there's a problem with this whole sexual orientation and that's the following: private life is no more private and everyone has to justify oneself for whatever choice they make.
Being gay/lesbian might be wrong to you but as far as I remember (never quite bothered to read the Bible but anyway), Love is universal. When we say 'love your neighbour', it was not explicited that women should not love women and that men should not love men. The feeling is the same.
>>23 'Love your neighbour' is more about agape than eros - that is, love everyone as a friend, not have a sexual relationship with your neighbour. Christians who have a problem with homosexuality generally refer to 'be fruitful and multiply' - God's instructions to Adam and Eve, meaning the whole human race.
And forget 'do unto others...'
Certainly, >>23 - but to be fair, I choose to ignore that point - as I said, I'm not well acquainted with my 'source'.
And well, in French, it sounds different - it's not the word for 'neighbour' that is used... it was more like: Love everyone.
And if we have to be friendly to our neighbour, then we should accept them as they are, right?
Multiply... what's the use? There are too many humans already. (Not meant to be offensive... not quite.)
>>16, thank you, thank you and thank you. Comment >>14 really upset me and made me angry for days afterwards... Thank god someone understands reality and has a sense of empathy. God...
>>17, there is a difference between Political Correctness and opinion. Your homophobia is an opinion based on your religion.
Homosexuality doesn't hurt people. Even if you do not like it, it doesn't affect you personally in any way.
However, telling racist jokes or spouting hate speech (etc) does hurt people. It rouses hatred and intolerence, or it makes people feel vulnerable and isolated.
The 'be fruitful and multiply' is ridiculous anyway because that would mean people who are infertile or old could not be in a sexual relationship.
Nonsense.
Hello, obviously it does appliy to politcal correctness, because you can't say it without failing to be politically correct.
So if I were to say something along the lines of, "Half-castes are abominations, because sleeping with someone from another race is WRONG', is that just a matter of political correctness in your eyes?
Political correctness... it's more about the phrasing of an opinion - you can try and say things in a diplomatic way.
You can say harmless stuff but in a way seen as politically incorrect by some. And thus get a hearful because, oh dear, how can you SAY that!? Well, that's how I see it. I might be wrong, though.
No one is saying that it's all about political correctness - opinions are different.
If you were to say that, I wouldn't bother with political correctness and merely think of you as an idiot (though nastier epithets might come to mind).
You know, nowadays in my country. Everything you say is politically incorrect.
I once had an encounter with a five year old of MOrrocon nationality. He told me, straight in the face: Go back to your own country.
A while later we had a workshop about racism in our school. There, they told us we couldn't be racist and that it was wrong. I agree completely.
But when I asked the spokeswoman if what happened to me was also racism; she told me it was reversed racism.
I mean, isn't it the same, whether I would say it to him or he to me.
It was plotically correct she said, because everybody is entitled to their own opinion. But what about the fact that I would immediately go to jail if I had said that to him?
I don't get it. In my eyes, political correctness only exists when you are not the victim of political incorrectness.
Well, I see what you mean - it's the same where I live - even more... you can't tell just anyone they are morons. I once insulted one of my friend who was being really stupid and she reacted as if I said something racist (well, she's a Jew but to me, an idiot is an idiot... and I won't call her intolerant if she insulted me just because I'm Christian...)
May I ask where you live? Still, that person should know that racism goes both ways. Still, reverse racism still is racism and I don't see why it should tolerated. Is it okay when it's your country? I mean... when people in France say 'France to the French' everyone is like: RACISTS!
Does it mean that depending on where you live, the way you look and the place you come from, you would automatically be seen as a racist if you say bad stuff about other people?
>>33, I really don't understand your complaint. First of all, it was a five year old. It was obviously something it's parents had taught it. If an adult said that, then of course civilised people would be disgusted. It's not just 'politically incorrect' is racist. So no, don't say something like that back to a five year old... Being coffee coloured, I had a six year old tell me I and my family used to be his slaves. Hurtful, yes, but I didn't get pissed off about it, mostly because what he said was idiotic. Plus, he was a child. It was his parents who were to blame.
Also, I would NEVER want to say the same thing to someone else! So the issue of me going to prison wasn't a problem.
Also "reverse" racism and racism are the same thing, so it wasn't like they were being allowed to say what they want. It's still considered racist.
Racists are allowed to say their opinion (like Nick Griffin being on Question Time)but it is racist and often the way they explain their opinion is through politcally incorrect ways (like in their pamphlets they have pictures of black people with bulging eyes, big lips and looking like monkeys.)
>>34,What did you say to your Jewish friend? If you say bad stuff about a group of people, then it would be seen as prejudiced because it's an entire group you are cussing out. Also, it depends what you mean by "bad stuff."
The basic idea of political incorrectness is when a person or persons doesn't give a damn about disadvantaged or small, secluded people, and basically says hurtful things about the group.The government enforce political correctness so in time it becomes second nature for us to not go around calling someone 'gay' as an insult and to learn to respect differences more.
People keep complaining about "oh we can't have a joke!" Because certain groups do not understand that their ideas of 'jokes' were actually hurtful or spiteful and only aimed to make the group more excluded, and further fractured society.
I.e-
All gypsies are dirty thieves.
All blacks are stupid criminals.
All 'paddy's are thick' jokes. Maybe the Irish wouldn't mind jokes like that so much if the English didn't actually treat them like they were stupid in real life; if they didn't have to see signs on pub doors saying:
"No Blacks
No Paddies
No Dogs."
Nice.
Whilst PC can be frustrating at times, for everyone, and is used by some people to their advantage,on the whole I agree with it. It is a natural reaction in a mutlinational society. The the people that wail about 'political correctness gone mad' are usually the people that have not been bullied and treated like shit for years. Political correctness tends to remind people that we are a multinational nation and reminds them that their ancestors weren't the best people. While anyone with an ounce of maturity doesn't care (it wasn't them that did those things) and just gets on with it, you will always get people sulking who want it like the 'good old days.'
You assume that everyone from any sort of minority IS offended, Moonphase. It varies from person to person. Personally, I think intent matters, so if someone were to call my dad a 'terrorist' in jest, none of us would find it offensive. We'd just point out that our Christian friend's beard was far larger. There is a huge difference between blatant racism and political incorrectness, and you've got them confused. I believe in freedom of speech, as long as it doesn't incite hatred.
True, it does vary. However, there has to be a level of generalisation or it wouldn't work. So, some people consider 'nigger' racist, others don't at all, others don't in context. However, in general it's a racist term. It make life easier and simpler.
So the 'terrorist' example, even though it doesn't hurt you or your family, and you take it in jest, it is still 'politically incorrect.'
Political correctness and incorrectness was born out of prejudice, and race and gender tend to cause the biggest problems for people who hate or disagree with PC.
" I believe in freedom of speech, as long as it doesn't incite hatred."
PC was created to prevent hate speech. And, surely that sentence is contradictory?
Nope. Say someone says 'all black people only eat fried chicken'. That's a daft stereotype, but as long as the speaker doesn't want/cause others to rise up en masse and attack black people, I feel they have a right to say it. I don't care if people are 'offended'; offense doesn't harm anyone. People have a right to tell jokes about the Holocaust; others don't have to find them funny. If you start policing freedom of speech, and create that new norm within a population, people in power will exploit it.
But that's what I mean.You say you believe in freedom of speech, but by adding the 'as long as...' etc, that is putting a requirement on it. Therefore, its not free.
Shouldn't 'freedom of speech' mean anyone can say anything, even if it incites hatred, because that's freedom?
Freedom will always be a subjective concept, as it's an abstract noun. I believe that if something incites hatred, it severely restricts a group's freedom, hence the caveat.
How does it restrict another group?
Surely, by letting the BNP openly say what they want, other people (including the groups they are inciting hatred towards) are free to call them on their nonsense?
If you have a majority inciting hatred towards a minority, that minority cannot defend itself. Ditto for a powerful minority vs a powerless majority, come to that. For the most obvious example, look at Hitler's Germany. The words themselves don't restrict, but the ensuing treatment does. And only the loudest voices are heard.
Telling a Madeline McCann joke, on the other hand, while perhaps in bad taste, isn't going to result in discrimination. Or genocide. Hopefully.
freedom!
there is a saying about this word:
"Your freedom stops, where mine starts, and my freedom stops where yours starts!"
and I would like also give thumbs up to moonphase!
Another trend which has arisen is mis-aimed backlash. Being 'policitally incorrect' sounds dangerous and edgy now; as a consequence, I have heard things called politically incorrect which do nothing remotely which might be offensive to any minority or group, only because they're slightly more ironic than the Oprah show.
>>44 but that's a majority spewing hatred. However, many small minorities spew hatred, i.e. the violent imams who hate the West and encourage terrorist acts, or the BNP who have extreme views of nationality and immigration. Surely hate speech and political incorectness should apply to minorities and majorities, so while the Nazi argument is valid, it is only one side of the coin.
Plus, if Hate Speech were disallowed, it would go underground and become more dangerous. On the other hand, political correctness, whilst sometimes annoying, on the whole it simply raises awareness. If someone wants to be politically incorrect in their own home, fine. That's less dangerous than being a secret Nazi holding underground Nazi meetings.
Thanks to political correctness, people like Nick Griffin can have their say, but instead of screaming racism from a platform, it has to be done with a level of civility. As the BNPs ideas are mostly out of touch nonsense, this is quickly realised, mocked and dismissed.
Also your comment in >>40, you don't care if people are offended? Look again at my earlier posts. My whole point before was that history plays a part in why some people are offended by certain things said by certain people and to ignore that is ridiculous. Why is it ridiculous? If it makes people feel more isolated and bitter,then doesn't that infringe on their being intergrated with society? Doesn't that help fracture people and breed more hatred?
You say there is a difference between racism and Political Correctness? Not really, look at some of these comments, people are complaining about year eights 'being made to feel bad' over teachings of the Holocaust, of not being able to say 'go back home' to someone else and to not tell homosexuals that they are offensive for being homosexuals (<I know that last one isn't racism, but you get my drift.)
As Tristana said earlier, it isn't what you say but how you say it, and that is where political correctness comes into play.
As for the Madeline McCann joke, surely it depends on the joke? If people are joking about the parents being nvolved in her murder, isn't that helping whip up more resentment blame and hatred towards the parents? Yet, a Maddy McCann joke isn't hate speech. It is politically incorrect.
>>45, Completely agree with your post. We often like to go around saying how much we believe in 'freedom of speech' but many of us don't. I for one do not defend to the death someone right to say that the west is evil, for the west bourough curch to picket funerals, and so on. I believe that true freedom of speech can come about when we are more reasonable and mture as a civilisation, and we have a way to go yet. And thanks for the thumbs up! :)
>>46 agreed.
Hate speech IS currently illegal. If you knew anything about the Nazi party, you would know that they were originally a minority group that gained power because of a mix of national turmoil AND a charismatic leader. Rhetoric proved a powerful tool. If you can't be bothered to research political correctness and racism to see the difference for yourself, I really can't help you.
I don't give a damn about how someone says something; it's what they're saying that matters. I'm amazed that you think the former is more important. If people aren't candid, you have a breakdown of communication- personally, nationally and internationally. That's a whole lot more isolating and dangerous in the long run.
A joke is a joke. It is not intended to be taken seriously. So no, a Madeline McCann joke is entirely different to someone standing up and saying, "Maddy's mum killed her; let's kill Maddy's mum" and actually meaning every word.
But in >>44 you were saying about the 'loudest' voices being heard and emphasising about majority groups victimising minority groups (you even said majority and minority a couple of times), so I just answered in accordance with that.
I know hate speech is illegal, but currently we're having a bit of a hard time deciding what is hate, what is incorrect, and what is freedom of speech. My argument that underground it is more dangerous is still valid.
I don't think political correctness will result in a breakdown of communication. LIke I said with the BNP/Griffin example, in order to be heard and taken seriously, the group had to go down a slightly more PC route (in order to not be seen as a mad fringe party.) Because they're arguments are ridiculous, they were able to be, as I said, heard, mocked and then dismissed.
They are less of a threat now than what they were when they were a silent, dangerous group recruiting disillusioned angry people.
I understand what you mean by the Maddy joke, but the idea of 'incitement' means, as far as I understand, to encourage. I'm not saying jokes about Maddy McCanns parents result in their deaths, but it can still, as said earlier about minority groups, encourage genuine dislike of them and isolation.
But in >>44 you were saying about the 'loudest' voices being heard and emphasising about majority groups victimising minority groups (you even said majority and minority a couple of times), so I just answered in accordance with that.
I know hate speech is illegal, but currently we're having a bit of a hard time deciding what is hate, what is incorrect, and what is freedom of speech. My argument that underground it is more dangerous is still valid.
I don't think political correctness will result in a breakdown of communication. LIke I said with the BNP/Griffin example, in order to be heard and taken seriously, the group had to go down a slightly more PC route (in order to not be seen as a mad fringe party.) Because they're arguments are ridiculous, they were able to be, as I said, heard, mocked and then dismissed.
They are less of a threat now than what they were when they were a silent, dangerous group recruiting disillusioned angry people.
I understand what you mean by the Maddy joke, but the idea of 'incitement' means, as far as I understand, to encourage. I'm not saying jokes about Maddy McCanns parents result in their deaths, but it can still, as said earlier about minority groups, encourage genuine dislike of them and isolation.
<i>"If you have a majority inciting hatred towards a minority, that minority cannot defend itself. Ditto for a powerful minority vs a powerless majority, come to that."</i>
<i>"If you have a majority inciting hatred towards a minority, that minority cannot defend itself. <b>Ditto for a powerful minority vs a powerless majority, come to that.</b>"</i>
sigh
You haven't made an argument regarding underground hate speech, either- an argument requires evidence.
My apologies, I must not have read that sentence properly before answering. So what do you mean exactly by a 'powerful minority?' The only thing I can think of is a minority that have solid financial backing, as soon as people start agreeing with them, would that not make them a majority?
My example of underground hate will stay with the BNP. So, after the recent election campaign, the BNP suffered badly, losing seats in places where they had a stronghold such as Barking and Dagenham. The party lost much support after they repeatedly failed to explain policies to the general public and tried to soften (at least temporarily) their stance on issues in order to fit better with the political status quo.
However, before they were in the limelight, the party were slowly growing and making connections with groups within the KKK and going to people like Colonel Gaddafi for monetry aide.
If it hadn't been for this coming to light, under the public eye, the BNP could have continued to infiltrate their bias and prejudice into the population, gathering more members and growing steadily more powerful. Instead, members lost faith and/or started in-fighting (such as Mark Collette threatening Griffin.)
>>48, one last question, you say people need to be candid, communication breaks down and that is isolating and dangerous.
But you wouldn't allow Hate Speech. By not allowing it, then surely that means certain belief (however wrong) are not being communicated.
You can scoff at me for believing in 'how' you say something, but if we are talking about 'candid' conversation/debate, then surely allowing people with hatred to say their piece, but in a manner that is somewhat policed or controlled (due to its harmful nature) then surely that is better than just not having it all together? Surely that is better communication than just allowing in to go underground?
As I said before, the BNP were seriously mocked after Question Time and political correcteness helps prevent Hate Speech being at its most virilent?
Excuse the bad grammar, it's five in the morning and I haven't slept. Again.
>>35 First of all, I didn't say anything back to the kid. I just meant that if I had said what he had to him in the first place, I would be called a recist. But when he (and not only him, but I mean a person of every age) said that to me it wasn't racist but reversed racism. I asked if there was a difference to that lady and she answered:
Why, of course. Reversed racism is when a minority who is victim of racism is racist to the majority.
I don't think she was correct. Racism is racism, don't put it in different categories. As for freedom of speech, it doesn't exist.
People say it does, but you still get restricted because of the law against hate speech and all.
Hate speech is part of FOS. BUt if it's illegal (which I can completely understand) then there is no FOS anymore.
>>34 I'm from Belgium. BUt here, when the 'Belgians' (everybody who has our nationality is Belgian, sadly some people believe that's not the case) say racist things the BElgians ARE racists.
But when immigrants with Belgian nationality or applicants are racist to the 'Belgians' they are correct because EVERY 'BElgian' is racist to them so they deserve to be the same to the 'Belgians'.
That's the way it goes here, and I totally don't agree. Either make racism legal for both sides or illegal for both sides, but don't let one group get away with it. Because exactlly such behaviour is feeding hatred and racism.
Alright - apparently, you have the same problem as we do in France then... (Well, I can always argue that my father's parents are Italian and that the others are Swiss/French... if anything)
So yeah, I agree with you on the point that 'racism is racism no matter how you call it'.
Wait up... if you were in Belgium when he said that... can always say: I already am.
Still, even if the kids are just repeating whatever their parents said, it doesn't excuse anything. It's even worse because kids say stuff too big for them, without understanding just how bad it can be. Not saying that a kid is stupid but when you are 5 years old... well. (I remember calling someone names when in my mother's car and she was like: Don't you ever dare saying that to anyone ever again if you don't want to be punished for the rest of the month. She meant it.)
Parents should teach their kids that there are stuff that you can think all you want but can't say just to everyone.
And of course, you are the racist one, you ARE Belgian, after all. So yeah... /sarcasm
All i'm gonna say here; Democracy sucks. Well, ours does.
I'd rather not live in a dictatorship though... Were do you live?
>>59 Democracy can't suck because it doens't exist. In order of a democracy to exist EVERYBODY has to let his own opinion be heared. I don't think there is a country where everybody can say their mind (people chose others to speak for them --> not democracy).
Not to mention that in Belgium the people that you have chosen can still give their seat in the Senate to others, so our choice doesn't really mean anything.
The thing about people saying things to you but calling you names if you reply reminds me of the infamous Mary R who is on a crusade against yaoi fanfictions in France... shakes head
Iaccy, I guess that Mr. Churchill was a fine man... he really was.^^