Political Correctness: is it just a modern myth?

rubadub

Hobbes wrote:

Some people do take serious offensive to happy christmas, had an incident where I wished a Jewish guy happy christmas and he was offended by it.

If I was wished happy hanukkah it wouldnt phase me in the slightest. Like blowfish says it is the intent that counts. I have always thought "bless you" was a bit of an odd thing to say, but again I just see it as being polite.

I was almost banned from a US forum for talking about an irish guy who had an accident at a party, I was saying "well I reckon he was probably drinking, I know of only one Irish person my age who doesn't drink". I was branded a racist. (that is the only sort of thing that does get to me, misuse of words, I never saw "irish" listed as one of the few races in my geography book).
The guy who owned the site probably assumed I was american, and non-irish american and was saying all irish-americans were alcoholics or something.
I was simply telling the truth, not racist, prejuidiced if anything, but well reasoned informed prejudice, which I consider common sense. If I had said I only know of one belgian person my age who doesnt drink I doubt he would have said a thing.

Sometime in the future african-american may not be a politically correct word.
Tinker was once fine, knacker describes somebody who renders horses, I wonder how long traveller will last before it is deemed incorrect, if people started saying the word with phonetic venom in their voice it may suddenly not be acceptable. Like spastic was gradually unacceptable, and cerebral palsy was perferred, but then I have heard that "palsy" is now banned in some schools since people used it as a term of abuse.

simu

Snickers Man wrote:

That flapping sound you here is the naked emperor's todger being tossed about by the wind.

Thar be the truth!

John_C

I had time to search for some links, though an account with the times is needed.


Here:
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/opinion/2003/0404/2927529991LTDIA4APR.html
The start of the article

An Irishman's Diary
Kevin Myers


I was quite taken aback to see Emily O'Reilly, rather more amply upholstered in the flesh than I had remembered, singing at Lansdowne Road last Sunday. What a girl! Our ombudsman who is now - we learn - to be our ombudswoman is in addition our ombudsthrush, warbling with the best of them. Moreover, the added avoirdupois suited her.

Where do her talents stop? In fact, it turned out that the singer was Cara O'Sullivan; no doubt she would make a splendid ombudsperson also. And though there is no such thing as yet, no doubt soon there will be, as the word "man" is systematically removed from the English language.

And here's more:
http://www.ireland.com/cgi-bin/dialogserver?SAVEDB=all&QUERY00=ombudsperson&STARTDATE0=&ENDDATE0=&DB=all&ORGANISE_CODED=R%3Adate0&Search.x=0&Search.y=0&THRESHOLD=90

Karl Hungus

Look, whatever you want to think yourself. You don't like the source? How about this story, or is the BBC another Right Wing British tabloid? I'm sure there's plenty of other sources out there that have the same, or similar stories.

I'm honestly at a loss though. I don't think I've ever come across anyone who would hold the viewpoint that if they themselves haven't experienced it, it doesn't exist. I don't believe any degree of proof is going to convince you, so it's really a moot arguement, isn't it?

metrovelvet

John C - that article is inheritantly sexist despite the PC terminology. Unbelieveble. At least Page 3 makes it blatant.

Hobbes

metrovelvet wrote:

Hobbes there is no reason for you to bring up old arguments.

You are seeming to imply that people are banned from the forum because it is overly PC. It isn't, its because the people banned who were incapable of (a) reading the charter and (b) following the rules after having them explained to them.

Your the one making the assertion its PC, not me and its not true.

You have recently changed your title. Werent you the mod formerlly known as General of the PC Brigade.

rofl. get real. The title was sarcasm and registered users can change thier own title. You mean you actually took that to be true or something?

the caller dont find it offensive it's allowed, regardless of how I feel about it.

Each post has a report post feature. Learn to use it.

If I was wished happy hanukkah it wouldnt phase me in the slightest. Like blowfish says it is the intent that counts. I have always thought "bless you" was a bit of an odd thing to say, but again I just see it as being polite.

Yea I wouldn't see the offense in it either but the person I wished certainly lost the handle over it. Different people have different limits.

Look, whatever you want to think yourself. You don't like the source? How about this story, or is the BBC another Right Wing British tabloid? I'm sure there's plenty of other sources out there that have the same, or similar stories.

Very old news but afair (from other posts) the Muslim families also thought it was a bit over the top. However the stories weren't banned, they were just not read to the class. The kids were still able to get the books from Library and read them if they so wished.

Cake Fiend

rubadub wrote:

Sometime in the future african-american may not be a politically correct word

It's already on the euphamism treadmill. I'd say there are plenty of black people who would be uncomfortable being referred to as 'African-American' - I'd imagine it would sound condescending.

Anyone remember who that bonehead was that called Nelson Mandela an 'African-American'? Roffle.

metrovelvet

Sico wrote:

. I'd say there are plenty of black people who would be uncomfortable being referred to as 'African-American' - I'd imagine it would sound condescending.

Why?

Black refers to race. African America refers to heritage.

Just as I am white and Irish-American.

We are a nation of hyphenated beings but know that the American part dominates it.

Like the word n*****. Its very un PC but hiphop artists and american blacks use it all the time. Yo wassup n*****. After so many african americans fought so hard to get rid of that word now their grandchildren cant stop using it. WTF?

John_C

metrovelvet wrote:

John C - that article is inheritantly sexist despite the PC terminology. Unbelieveble. At least Page 3 makes it blatant.

I agree and I'm not going to defend Kevin Myres. The reason I posted it was because the original poster asked for an example of where 'man' was being replaced by 'person' in an inappropriate context.

metrovelvet

Hobbes wrote:

You are seeming to imply that people are banned from the forum because it is overly PC. It isn't, its because the people banned who were incapable of (a) reading the charter and (b) following the rules after having them explained to them. .

Stop projecting. Im not implying. You are inferring.

The rules dont make any sense or at least how you choose to apply them.

Hobbes wrote:

Your the one making the assertion its PC, not me and its not true. .

I stand corrected. Its your version of PC.

Hobbes wrote:

rofl. get real. The title was sarcasm and registered users can change thier own title. You mean you actually took that to be true or something?.

Yes. I did. Get real? This is a virtual world. Sarcasm doesnt always read. Take some responsibility.

Hobbes wrote:

Each post has a report post feature. Learn to use it.?.

Save your condecension for someone whose interested.

Snickers Man

Karl Hungus wrote:

Look, whatever you want to think yourself. You don't like the source? How about this story, or is the BBC another Right Wing British tabloid? I'm sure there's plenty of other sources out there that have the same, or similar stories.

This one has the ring of truth about it. Have you read it?
She didn't say 'nobody shall mention pigs'.She didn't outlaw it from the school. Instead she removed it from the classrooms of very young children in a school that is 60 per cent Muslim so that those Muslim children would not be forced to read it. It remains in the school library where any body who WANTS to can read about the three little pigs.

What's your problem there?

samb

metrovelvet wrote:

Why?

Black refers to race. African America refers to heritage.
?

What Heritage? They came from africa hundreds of years ago, just like all of mankind did thousands of years ago. They are in no way African.

Hobbes

metrovelvet wrote:

The rules dont make any sense or at least how you choose to apply them.

Discussed to death already. To sum up, the forum in question is like a club for like people. Sure you could come in being offensive to everyone there but how long do you think people will continue to put up with you?

Yes. I did.

roflmao.. good thing I've started imposing western values then.

Save your condecension for someone whose interested.

If you find something offensive then it is generally up to you to report it, otherwise how do you think people will stop being unintentionally offensive to you? Telepathy?

Snickers Man

John_C wrote:

I had time to search for some links, though an account with the times is needed.


Here:
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/opinion/2003/0404/2927529991LTDIA4APR.html
The start of the article

Oh for God's sake! Kevin Bloody Myers the leading Mysoginist in the country writing one of his spoof articles and you're citing that as evidence?

Show me the article which says O'Reilly demanded to be known as the ombusperson. I couldn't find it.

What seems to have happened is that some muppet in the Times subediting desk decided that there was such a word as ombudsperson just because a woman had been appointed to the role. So for a while that paper used that term. That's my take on it.

Nobody demanded it, some people thought OOh there's a lot of political correctness about. We'd better make up this word ombudsperson or we;ll be laughed at.

You will no doubt be delighted to knowthat ther ehas been no mentionof the word ombudsperson inthe Times since at least January 2005. I didn;t check further back than that.

Which again goes to indicate to me that such political correctness as there is is largely internal.People assume that there'#s this great force urging them towards po-faced language when in fact there isn't. Apart from the one they put in place themselves.

It;s almost Kafkaesque. There's this huge bureaucratic force but nobody knows where it's coming from or who's pushing it.

Weird.





And here's more:
http://www.ireland.com/cgi-bin/dialogserver?SAVEDB=all&QUERY00=ombudsperson&STARTDATE0=&ENDDATE0=&DB=all&ORGANISE_CODED=R%3Adate0&Search.x=0&Search.y=0&THRESHOLD=90[/QUOTE]

metrovelvet

Well its an american pre-occupation. Dont judge it. You dont have to understand it, just accept it.

Just as Americans who are descended from famine survivors may in no way be Irish, Irish-American means something else, it doesnt imply they are Irish the way you are.

New world people like to know where they came from, kind of like adopted children.

Hobbes the only one who said it was offensive was you. And you're not a Muslim are you.

Hobbes

metrovelvet wrote:

Hobbes the only one who said it was offensive was you. And you're not a Muslim are you.

Said what was offensive? I was referring to your earlier comments of...

Now, I hate it, and I mean hate it when Im called baby doll, baby cakes, petal, sweetheart or anything diminuitive or miniature. I HATE IT!!! And yet I have been called those things several times on these boards and because the MODS and the caller dont find it offensive it's allowed, regardless of how I feel about it.

You did report the posts in question? Yes? Incidently, do you have a link to those posts in question?

John_C

Snickers Man wrote:

Oh for God's sake! Kevin Bloody Myers the leading Mysoginist in the country writing one of his spoof articles and you're citing that as evidence?

Show me the article which says O'Reilly demanded to be known as the ombusperson. I couldn't find it.

Neither could I but that could be as much due to the poor search feature in their website than anything else. I'll have another look and let you know if I can find the original article. If you like you can type the phrase "ombudsperson ireland" into google and you'll find several sources more relyable and less mysognistic than Kevin Myres, including other newspapers and a senad debate. Here's a letter in the times from about the same time which makes reference to it.

OMBUDSMAN OR OMBUDSWOMAN?


Madam, - Upon hearing that the newly appointed Ombudsman wishes to be called "Ombudswoman" I asked a Swedish friend to comment.

After all, the Swedes invented the position and the name - in 1805. This is his reply:

"We have a number of words ending with 'man', like the English 'chairman'. We do not change those with sex, i.e. we would not say 'chairwoman' or look for compromises like 'chairperson'. We would use the original man-ended word also for females. So we would say 'ombudsman' also if the ombudsman is a woman.

"This also happens the other way round: We call nurses at hospitals sjuksyster ('sick-sister') and use the same word if the sister happens to be a man.

"Ombud means 'representative', so the ombudsman is a person who represents someone, or a particular group of people."

If Ms Emily O'Reilly wants to invent new Swedish words, well, good luck to her. - Yours, etc.,

DAVID SOWBY,

Dublin 18.

On the general topic, I think that a lot of what is called political correctness is just good manners. Such as not using phrases like "they worked like blacks". Sometimes people go a bit OTT such as using words like "ombudsperson" and when that happens they usually get the mickey taken out of them and stop.

red dave

A few months ago I googled "Political Correctness" or something to that effect to find out where it came from and who invented it. I read through loads and loads of sites and eventually came accross one (unfortuanately for me I have tried to find this site again but I can't so I'm sorry I have to go from memory of what I read). Well it was a transcript of a speech that some a man (sorry don't remember his name) wrote about the origins of political correctness. He was some historian gin=ving speeches in colleges in the U.S.

He said it started out around the end of World War 2 as some comic strip in a newspaper "as a joke" and was jumped on by some "thinkers" of the world. He went on to say how it became an ideology that these "thinkers" had and have nowadays in order to have a reaction. The whole idea of it is to cause a build up in anger, frustration and dissillusionment amongst the public around the globe.

It makes absolutely no sense to introduce some of these bans on speech which is muddling, confusing and blurring the lines between actual free speech with racist, anti-gay or neo-whatever's comments and the like. It causes alienation and resentment amongst ppl. I read an article, I think it was posted on boards? about how a church in england was refused permission to put a cross outside it because it was seen as a form of "advertisement." I don't go to mass but WTF? I don't care if a cross is outside a church, a star on a mosque or whatever, actually not that I wouldn't care, it's what I would expect to see outside of those places.

Back to that speech I read...he gave an example, one of which I remember was of some coffee company that was telling it's employees to offer coffee without milk not "black coffee".

Really apologise for not having either the link or any names to quote of what I read and just going by my memory.

Even the word "Political Correctness" is a really tame word for this whole oppression. imo

rant over...going to sleep

p.s. am I spelling speech correct or is it speach? I don't know how to get a spell check on this boards thing sorry :rolleyes:

Karl Hungus

Right, you believe political correctness is a myth? That it's non-intrusive, non-oppressive. it doesn't challenge anyone's freedoms, and it's just "Good manners"?

Well then, go tell that to David Irving and Ernst Zundel.

metrovelvet

John_C wrote:

On the general topic, I think that a lot of what is called political correctness is just good manners. Such as not using phrases like "they worked like blacks". Sometimes people go a bit OTT such as using words like "ombudsperson" and when that happens they usually get the mickey taken out of them and stop.

The "work like blacks" comment was just disgusting, whether you support PC or not. But in Ireland I hear a lot of weird phrases that havent been used in the states for decades, like "colured" or "half-caste", that latter I just cant believe but you hear older people using it.

I wouldnt see the ombudsperson as OTT but as inclusive. I know its a mouthful and that a lot of these language policies are cumbersome, but they do make a difference, at least to those constitencies who have been excluded.

Yet at the same time, what has happened is that gendered terms, like actor and actress have been reabsorbed into one, ACTOR. So what do they want?

BUt PC has at times moved beyond language into behavior. FOr example in the 1990s there was a college in the US, Antioch which implented a policy around dating rituals. So lets say your out with a girl, you have to explicity ask her permission before you do anything. "Can I take your hand?" "Can I touch your left nipple?" Unless she says "yes you may" you're in violation. And they sent the male students to "sensitivity training."

How is this any less policing and controlling than the nuns telling us not to sit with our legs crossed because it's masterbating?

Determined2005

PCness is not a myth. It is about limiting debate with accusations of racism, sexism, anti-semitism directed towards those who happen to criticise either individual who happen to be of an ethnic-minority, a different gender, or Jewish. In the US, the strongest form of Political-Correctness by regarding criticism of Israel. If you criticise Israeli treatment of the Palestinians, the pro-Israel lobby denounce you as "anti-semitic". They even denounced "The Passion of Christ" movie as anti-semitic. PCness is also about going too far in the name of appeasing certain minorities. We should aim for a tolerant society, but that shouldn't mean that legitimate debate on matters of public-concern should be silenced, nor that - in the name of currying favour with certain groups - that the rights of the majority are damaged.

The worst form of Political-Correctness in Ireland centres around the immigration debate. If you criticise someone for being an illegal immigrant and/or call for them to be deported, inevitably some media crank or politican will call you a "racist" or charge that you have a "racial" motive and are engaged in "nasty" campaigning or "playing the race card". This is now so widespread in Irish politics that it becomes almost impossible to have a calm and open debate on the issue. A clear gulf exists on the immigration issue between the 76% of the public who call for tighter immigration controls and the near 100% of TD's in Dail Eireann who do not want to bring up this subject. The Citizenship referendum showed that the liberal PC-brigade - including virtually all national newspapers except the Irish Sun and Irish Independent - do not represent the majority of public on this issue. PCness is not a mass-movement among the Irish people. But it most certainly is among the politicians.

Hobbes

Determined2005 wrote:

PCness is not a myth.

You are correct, however it works both ways tbh. For example it is impossible to have a rational debate on some things because when you ask a person to back a statement up by facts (which you know don't exist) then you get labelled as "PC".

Your example regarding illegal Immigrant is tosh. I have yet to see that anywhere where an illegal immigrant got offered the protection to stay here (with the excepton of Olunkuwle Elukanlo, but even that wasn't as you made out). What I have seen is people shouting "DOOOoom" regarding immigration and then lump Asylum seekers/refugees and immigrants into the same boat.

A clear gulf exists on the immigration issue between the 76% of the public who call for tighter immigration controls

Can I ask where you got that figure from?

The Citizenship referendum showed that the liberal PC-brigade

See name calling is fun. Incidently the citizenship referendum was never about immigration/asylum seekers. Theres a huge thread on boards about it already goes into great depth on the issue.

Delboy05

Hobbes wrote:

Can I ask where you got that figure from?

http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/0501/poll.html

poll is from may 05. nearly 80% want immigration curtailed....i'd say thats even higher now after all increased immigration we've had in the 10 months since....
but the politicians won't listen...i cant wait for the elections and they come knocking

fly_agaric

Hobbes wrote:

You are seeming to imply that people are banned from the forum because it is overly PC. It isn't, its because the people banned who were incapable of (a) reading the charter and (b) following the rules after having them explained to them.

Eh, Hobbes - Mr. "General of the PC Brigade" - the charter itself is a model of "PC" (getting to hate that term) in action because it forbids posters to discuss politics in relation to Islam.

We all know that's where the potential for heated argument and insult lies.

Everytime the Islamonuts blow something up or muslims in general are outraged by the latest EvilWest barbarity, posters come barrelling into your Islam forum wanting to discuss politics and Islam leading to threadlockage and bannings.

Also, it's very funny the way Snickers Man is denying that any PC wackiness exists while automatically rubbishing any sources discussing same which do not meet his idealogical muster! (too misogynistic - too little Englander etc)

samb

Delboy05 wrote:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/0501/poll.html

poll is from may 05. nearly 80% want immigration curtailed....i'd say thats even higher now after all increased immigration we've had in the 10 months since....
but the politicians won't listen...i cant wait for the elections and they come knocking

It is the politians job to understand these issues, to understand what is needed for our society and economy. The public often do not follow the issues closely which results in this ignorant attitude.

Determined2005

samb wrote:

It is the politians job to understand these issues, to understand what is needed for our society and economy. The public often do not follow the issues closely which results in this ignorant attitude.

I think that is a very undemocratic attitude.

samb

Determined2005 wrote:

I think that is a very undemocratic attitude.

Well I think in this case it is true (its not an attitude). All economic experts agree that for our economy to grow we need more immigrants. But to an extent I get your point. I don't claim to think democracy is perfect, but I do believe that it is best system. We need to get the public more involved and knowledgable about politics. I can't remember the figures but didn't about half the population not know who Pat Rabbite was? It is clear to me that there is a big democratic deficit.
But I suppose it is up to the politians to develop enitatives to get the public more envolved.
So its the politians fault;)

Determined2005

samb wrote:

Well I think in this case it is true (its not an attitude). All economic experts agree that for our economy to grow we need more immigrants. But to an extent I get your point. I don't claim to think democracy is perfect, but I do believe that it is best system. We need to get the public more involved and knowledgable about politics. I can't remember the figures but didn't about half the population not know who Pat Rabbite was? It is clear to me that there is a big democratic deficit.
But I suppose it is up to the politians to develop enitatives to get the public more envolved.
So its the politians fault;)

I would argue that too much immigration would fuel demand for housing leading to even higher rates of house-price growth. They are predicted to rise 7% this year alone. People are sick of not being able to afford a house. How are people going to afford to live here if this continues? Maybe we should aim for sustainable growth rather than maximising growth through too much immigration.

Also, there is a chance that immigration could ultimately cause economic recessions, as I will now explain. 400,000 out of 2 million workers are employed in construction. Immigration fuels construction as they need somewhere to live. This extra demand increases upward pressure on house prices. Eventually the bubble will burst as demand for housing collapses due to high house prices, leading to huge job losses in the construction sector.

I think then that there is a credible economic argument for a quota system to be introduced for immigration, in order to curb the rate of house price growth and avoid the boom-and-bust cycle that ultimately could delay the day when we reach significantly greater levels of wealth.

Hobbes

fly_agaric wrote:

Eh, Hobbes - Mr. "General of the PC Brigade" - the charter itself is a model of "PC" (getting to hate that term) in action because it forbids posters to discuss politics in relation to Islam.

Not at all, your free to discuss in this forum and it even tells people to discuss in this forum. Nothing PC there. The forum itself would be better looked at like a club. Other religous forums have this same rule, as does the paranormal forum or the GLB. For example trying to dispute anything on the paranormal forum will get you asked to go to Skeptics forum and get you banned if you continue.

This imho has nothing to do with being overly PC.

Everytime the Islamonuts blow something up or muslims in general are outraged by the latest EvilWest barbarity, posters come barrelling into your Islam forum wanting to discuss politics and Islam leading to threadlockage and bannings.

Actually it normally leads to a number of warnings, asked to put the question into the right forum or if they have a general question to ask it, then and only then ban.

The last incident I would say it brought about 8 new people asking questions to the forum who were not muslims, probably another 5 who came into the forum to voice issues and of that only 2 were offensive that warranted a ban.

Hobbes

Delboy05 wrote:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/0501/poll.html

poll is from may 05. nearly 80% want immigration curtailed....

Actually that is not what it says at all. It says stricter rules on immigration. Two different things. Also funny that over 70% wanted illegal Irish immigrants to be allowed stay in the US.

The poll was also somewhat flawed (as as I recall discussed in this forum before) as most people didn't distingush between immigrants, asylum seekers and refugees thinking they are all more or less the same.

i'd say thats even higher now after all increased immigration we've had in the 10 months since....

We have?