Political Correctness: is it just a modern myth?

Snickers Man · 26-03-2006 12:57pm

Karl Hungus wrote:

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.

I'm not familiar with Ernst Zundel.

I take it you are referring to the jailing of Mr Irving for "denying the holocaust'. I think that's a vastly different issue to the sort of silliness I'm talking about eg the 'banning' of nursery rhymes or the insistence on anodyne descriptions of people's physical ailments, ethnic features or religious persuasion.

Furthermore, Irving was jailed because he was deemed to have transgressed a written law of the Austrian land. There is no law against reciting Baa Baa Black sheep, there is no law which says that black people MUST be referred to as African-whatevers, there is no law which says 'Thou shalt not say Happy Christmas to an uptight American'

Now, back to the question of Irving: As it happens, I would agree with the notion that a law which forbids a particular interpretation of history per se is actually harmful in the long run. I am not a Nazi, have no sympathy with their ideology or actions and firmly believe that their policies led to the murder of millions of people, many of them Jews.

But historians SHOULD be able to re-examine the record, introduce new evidence, and try to rediscover how certain events happened and why so that they can relate the events of the past to the challenges of the present. That's why we study history in the first place.

Snickers Man · 26-03-2006 1:25pm

fly_agaric wrote:

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)

I do think, as it happens that Kevin Myers is a certifiable nut case, and I do take HUGE enjoyment at the fact that he is so upset about the1916 commemorations despite the fact that for the past ten years he has been urging us all to lookback with pride and fondness on our contributions to militarism of the time. And then when we do he screams : 'No no guys! Not those bloodthirsty armed killers!! The other ones!' Love it.

Also, if you read Myers regularly -- and I do -- you will know that he occasionally writes articles that are not historical polemics but are instead meant to be satirical pieces of fantasy. The article posted to on the link was an example of the latter. Not really a good piece to use for corroborative fact.

Then there was the article whose intro said that the headmistress had 'banned' the Three Little Pigs. She hadn't. She merely kept it out of sight of the Muslim kids,and even then only the very young Muslim kids, but kept it in the library where anybody who wanted to get it could.

When the Daily Express or the Daily Mail screams that somebody somewhere has 'banned' another great facet of traditional British life I immediately assume that they are exaggerating at best or downright lying at worst.

Could a story like this ever appear? Actually it probably has.

'Cocktail sausages BANNED from kids' party'

Children attending a party to celebrate the sixth birthday of their classmate Rebekah Goldstein were upset to learn that no cocktail sausages were to be served, irate parents told the Daily Apoplexy yesterday.

"We always have cocktail sausages at our parties," raged angry mum Samantha Slagbag. "Kids come to expect them. But we were told that they couldn't have them here because the restaurant where the party was held has BANNED them."

A spokesman for the restaurant "Chaim & Moshe's Kosher Kitchen" declined to comment. (ed: Well they actually said: "You what?" when asked why there were no sausages but that doesn't really count as a quote)

'It's political correctness gone mad' fumed Wayne Wankjob, whose children Dwayne and Darren had to content themselves with delicious spicy meatballs, fresh fruit and all manner of wonderful cakes. "I couldn't even get a cheesebuirger in the place. If they want to come here to live, I should be able to stomp into their place and demand a plate of jellied eels and a cup of tea."

Questions are likely to be asked in the House about how the civil rights of ordinary decent agnostics are being trampled over by immigrant followers of a primitive religion which imposes dietary restrictions on its members based on superstition and misconceptions about notions of hygiene that have been rendered obsolete since the invention of the refirgerator.
etc etc etc

Snickers Man · 26-03-2006 3:26pm

red dave wrote:

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.

All this is very interesting. It's amazing how this thing has grown by leaps and bounds to get into the public consciousness largely, it seems to me, by the efforts of those who oppose it. Let's face it; we can't seem to find too many people who support it, can we?

PS do share the fruits of your researches if you ever indulge in it again.

Delboy05 · 26-03-2006 6:01pm

Hobbes wrote:

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.

We have?

i say immigration 'curtailed'...you say 'stricter rules'....and thats not the same thing!!!!!
How is it funny....people are often 2 faced on issues like this.

Your able to recall the poll now and that people confused immigrants with aslyum seekers etc....but you could'nt recall it earlier until i gave the link...which you always ask for!!!!

Can you provide a link as to why the poll was 'flawed' or is that your personal reading into it....:rolleyes:

Hobbes · 26-03-2006 6:47pm

Delboy05 wrote:

i say immigration 'curtailed'...you say 'stricter rules'....and thats not the same thing!!!!!

No it isn't. You could have stricter rules and still have the same level of immigration (likewise with restricting levels). It doesn't mean people would want less immigrants in all instances, in much the same way that documenting the "undocumented Irish" doesn't mean they are going to get a visa afterwards.

Your able to recall the poll now and that people confused immigrants with aslyum seekers etc....but you could'nt recall it earlier until i gave the link...which you always ask for!!!!

Because your wording was wrong so I wasn't sure what survey you were referring to.

Can you provide a link as to why the poll was 'flawed' or is that your personal reading into it....:rolleyes:

You can do a search on the forum it (will have a link to the actual poll as well afair). As far as I recall the question didn't distingush between asylum seekers, immigrants, refugees. So people were answering on the misconceptions of what they perceived a "foreigner" to be. Heck a tourist is a foreigner.

Fact of the matter is Ireland needs more people. A lot more, unless the Irish don't start making lots of babies then the only other way the country is going to grow is with immigrants.

Delboy05 · 26-03-2006 6:57pm

Hobbes wrote:

You can do a search on the forum it (will have a link to the actual poll as well afair). As far as I recall the question didn't distingush between asylum seekers, immigrants, refugees. So people were answering on the misconceptions of what they perceived a "foreigner" to be. Heck a tourist is a foreigner.

Fact of the matter is Ireland needs more people. A lot more, unless the Irish don't start making lots of babies then the only other way the country is going to grow is with immigrants.

how can we start making babies when childcare costs so much and creches are scarce...transport is a joke thus people have to travel for hours to and from work...housing costs are prohibitive.
maybe if we slow down the economy...take the heat out of it...we'll need less immigrants and can have more enjoyment out of the success we're supposedly enjoying right now....

samb · 26-03-2006 7:18pm

Delboy05 wrote:

how can we start making babies when childcare costs so much and creches are scarce...transport is a joke thus people have to travel for hours to and from work...housing costs are prohibitive.
maybe if we slow down the economy...take the heat out of it...we'll need less immigrants and can have more enjoyment out of the success we're supposedly enjoying right now....

I think they should introduce some kind of extra capital-gains-tax for investment properties, and I would agree that there are problems that need to be sorted out as a priority over ecomonic growth. But I don't think you can blame immigration. Besides, from 2011 we cannot restrict access for members of the EU, even if we wanted to.

Wasn't there another poll that indicated that 2/3 of the population would support a work-permit system?, so I agree that the public are uneasy with the amount of immigration at present (but I don't agree with them).

Perhaps we should start a new thread for this.

Dagnir Glaurung · 26-03-2006 7:27pm

You'd be pretty blind not to see PC language everywhere. They even changed banaltra in Irish to altra. TIME magazine now had Person of the Year and not Man/Woman of the Year. The last wedding I was at the priest said I now pronounce you husband and wife.

Also:
1
1
3
4
5
6
7
8

Determined2005 · 26-03-2006 8:39pm

samb wrote:

I think they should introduce some kind of extra capital-gains-tax for investment properties, and I would agree that there are problems that need to be sorted out as a priority over ecomonic growth. But I don't think you can blame immigration. Besides, from 2011 we cannot restrict access for members of the EU, even if we wanted to.

Wasn't there another poll that indicated that 2/3 of the population would support a work-permit system?, so I agree that the public are uneasy with the amount of immigration at present (but I don't agree with them).

Perhaps we should start a new thread for this.

It was actually 78%.

fly_agaric · 26-03-2006 9:41pm

Snickers Man wrote:

I do think, as it happens that Kevin Myers is a certifiable nut case, and I do take HUGE enjoyment at the fact that he is so upset about the1916 commemorations despite the fact that for the past ten years he has been urging us all to lookback with pride and fondness on our contributions to militarism of the time. And then when we do he screams : 'No no guys! Not those bloodthirsty armed killers!! The other ones!' Love it.

I don't think Myers is a "nutcase". Otherwise, I've got to say I approve this message.:p

Snickers Man wrote:

Also, if you read Myers regularly -- and I do -- you will know that he occasionally writes articles that are not historical polemics but are instead meant to be satirical pieces of fantasy. The article posted to on the link was an example of the latter. Not really a good piece to use for corroborative fact.

I don't read him regularly. Tend to skip it unless he's writing about immigration because I agree with alot of what he had to say about that. (boo, hiss I hear:))

Snickers Man wrote:

When the Daily Express or the Daily Mail screams that somebody somewhere has 'banned' another great facet of traditional British life I immediately assume that they are exaggerating at best or downright lying at worst.

(As you have pointed out), the Daily Mail (and Myers) are the type of people who will report on anything they think is an example of "political correctness gone mad".
Yes, they exaggerate to make a point sometimes as they stroke their readers' prejudices, and yes, like all media they have been downright wrong at other times.

None of which changes the fact that the quest not to offend others can go too far and some of these examples of "political correctness gone mad" have happened.

E.g. 1 - False.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2944005.stm

E.g. 2 - True.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4398680.stm

I don't think any "PC" excesses are the result of a big conspiracy or anything. More a combination of groupthink, faddishness, and peer-pressure.
Although, if everyone who points them out or agrees with those who point them out is pilloried as a "nut" or a "little Englander" or a "misogynist" by those who say it is all a myth then maybe fear will play a part too.

Hobbes wrote:

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.

I am not arguing with the policy and I know these things can be discussed elsewhere. As you say, every forum is like a club and has its own set of rules to foster the type of discusssion desired so that anarchy doesn't reign.

It doesn't change the fact that the rule is "PC" in the sense that it is an attempt to prevent offence being taken by obstructing edgy topics and steering the discussions towards the details of the religion and its practice exclusive of any political aspects.

Hobbes wrote:

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.

I didn't mean to exaggerate or imply you were heavy handed. From what I could see you were applying the policy of the forum fairly.

nlgbbbblth · 26-03-2006 10:31pm

Some people feel that they can say whatever they want (no matter how offensive) and when someone objects they'll just say 'well you're just being PC'.

metrovelvet · 26-03-2006 11:08pm

PC is not just about words but about policy and personal behavior.

Would you eat in a restaurant where you knew the kitchen staff were HIV+?

Would you let your daughters marry a refugee?

Would you be prepared to not have Christmas Day off?

Are you prepared to consider meat eaters muderers?

SM- you remind me of Queen Victoria who did not outlaw lesbianism because she felt it just didnt exist.

Freelancer · 27-03-2006 12:52am

metrovelvet wrote:

PC is not just about words but about policy and personal behavior.

Ah are we going to get the same level of credible absuridty in politics as you offer in humanties?

Would you eat in a restaurant where you knew the kitchen staff were HIV+?

Considering the likelyhood of catching hiv from a non sexual non biological link outside of the body what is your point?

Would you let your daughters marry a refugee?

Why shouldnt I?

Would you be prepared to not have Christmas Day off?

Why would I have to?

Are you prepared to consider meat eaters muderers?

Whut?

SM- you remind me of Queen Victoria who did not outlaw lesbianism because she felt it just didnt exist.

Seripusly metrovelvet, again, what is your point?

metrovelvet · 27-03-2006 1:45am

Those are just questions to ask yourself to see how you measure along the pc spectrum.

What is your point? Other than to illustrate your hostilty toward me.

What are you going to contribute? So far your contribution adds to nil.

Freelancer · 27-03-2006 2:05am

Those are just questions to ask yourself to see how you measure along the pc spectrum.

What is your point? Other than to illustrate your hostilty toward me.

What are you going to contribute? So far your contribution adds to nil.

Um no you asked specific questions, I offered rebuttals to you. You cannot ask completely random questions and refuse to answer the reasoning behind such questions.

metrovelvet · 27-03-2006 2:13am

How can a question have a rebuttal?

Ive already told you why I posited them.

You just want to pick a fight. Now get over it.

rsynnott · 27-03-2006 2:53am

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

The thing about polls is that the sort of people who answer polls are, well, the sort of people who answer polls. It is impossible to take a representative poll.

metrovelvet wrote:

Would you eat in a restaurant where you knew the kitchen staff were HIV+?

Do you know how HIV spreads?

metrovelvet wrote:

Would you let your daughters marry a refugee?

LET your daughters? I wasn't aware they'd need parental signoff. In any case, why not? And are we confusing 'refugee' and 'immigrant', perhaps?

metrovelvet wrote:

Would you be prepared to not have Christmas Day off?

Many people don't, you know...

metrovelvet wrote:

Are you prepared to consider meat eaters muderers?

Completely irrelevant, and not part of mainstream "political correctness" at all.

metrovelvet wrote:

SM- you remind me of Queen Victoria who did not outlaw lesbianism because she felt it just didnt exist.

Myth.

metrovelvet wrote:

How can a question have a rebuttal?

Ive already told you why I posited them.

You just want to pick a fight. Now get over it.

Please at least try to be reasonable. Your questions are at best only of passing relevance.

samb · 27-03-2006 3:59am

metrovelvet wrote:

Those are just questions to ask yourself to see how you measure along the pc spectrum.

.

How? Pick one to explain perhaps

metrovelvet · 27-03-2006 4:24am

rsynnott wrote:

Do you know how HIV spreads?.

Yes. Do you?

rsynnott wrote:

LET your daughters? I wasn't aware they'd need parental signoff. In any case, why not? And are we confusing 'refugee' and 'immigrant', perhaps??.

No. Im not confusing the two. I know the difference. My parents were immigrants. My best friend's parents were refugees. So I know the difference. WEll you can take me literally with the term let, but you know what I mean. How many bourgie PC people would be comfortable marrying their kids off to a low status no money making refugee.

rsynnott wrote:

Completely irrelevant, and not part of mainstream "political correctness" at all.??.

Not true. Veganism. Vegetarianism. Anti Fur. All part of the PC platform.

rsynnott wrote:

Myth..??.

Well then even more germaine to the title of SMs thread. Is it a myth? I understood it to be true.

rsynnott wrote:

Please at least try to be reasonable. Your questions are at best only of passing relevance.

Well then why insist on prolonging talking about them?

Is that an underhanded way of calling me irrational?

Hobbes · 27-03-2006 7:08am

fly_agaric wrote:

It doesn't change the fact that the rule is "PC" in the sense that it is an attempt to prevent offence being taken by obstructing edgy topics and steering the discussions towards the details of the religion and its practice exclusive of any political aspects.

There is a misconception that Muslims only read the Islam forum. The people posting the stuff that can get you banned generally have no interest in the subject except to berate it and have no interest in rational discourse.

Snickers Man · 27-03-2006 7:37am

metrovelvet wrote:

SM- you remind me of Queen Victoria who did not outlaw lesbianism because she felt it just didnt exist.

I am NOT amused.

Snickers Man · 27-03-2006 7:39am

Freelancer wrote:

Seripusly metrovelvet, again, what is your point?

Yeah. You've lost me too.

bonkey · 27-03-2006 9:19am

John_C wrote:

"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 extract from a letter to the Times, originally posted here by John_C, caught my eye.

I've worked in more than one company where it was insisted that the correct term was now "chairperson". I've even been stopped once while speaking for being so inconsiderate (or something) as to refer to someone as "madam chairman".

jc

mountainyman · 27-03-2006 12:09pm

Metro Velvet's questions are a spectrum of attitudes to measure how PC you are.

Would you let your daughter marry a refugee (if you answer no you are not at all PC)
Would you call someone wearing fur a murderer (if you say yes you are a PC zealot)

I think it was pretty obvious.

PC can go beyond politeness like the American academic who called the people who died in the world trade centre 'little Eichmans"

Perhaps in Ireland we are too circumspect to really see PC in action.

MM

Hobbes · 27-03-2006 12:56pm

mountainyman wrote:

Would you let your daughter marry a refugee (if you answer no you are not at all PC)
Would you call someone wearing fur a murderer (if you say yes you are a PC zealot)

I would of said the reverse tbh. PC is generally a term to not upsetting others , although most refer to it beyond a point where it is upsetting the non-intended targets.

I don't see how either of those could be classed as PC. Also they are very broad. For example "would you let your daughter marry a refugee" a straight out no based on that single sentance would be more racist then PC. If you had more details on the subject then its more likely to give a valid answer. Example: Is she in love with him and reverse? Or is one of them doing to break the law? Do you have reservations on the persons income, etc.

The second one I would of thought a better question is do you call someone who wears fur a "socially challaged person when it comes to animals". That would be PC

Snickers Man · 27-03-2006 1:09pm

fly_agaric wrote:

I don't think Myers is a "nutcase". Otherwise, I've got to say I approve this message.:p

Tempted to respond but would probably go off topic.

fly_agaric wrote:

(As you have pointed out), the Daily Mail (and Myers) are the type of people who will report on anything they think is an example of "political correctness gone mad".
Yes, they exaggerate to make a point sometimes as they stroke their readers' prejudices, and yes, like all media they have been downright wrong at other times.

None of which changes the fact that the quest not to offend others can go too far and some of these examples of "political correctness gone mad" have happened.

E.g. 1 - False.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2944005.stm

E.g. 2 - True.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4398680.stm

Have you read through the example you cite as 'true'? A junior official made a decision that was over ruled. He (or she) thought it would be a good idea to neutralise Christmas but civil servants higher up veotoed his decision. So what do we conclude from that?

My guess would be that the junior clerk believed that such a move was necessary under the rules of political correctness that he (or she) thought would pertain in this particular case only to be disabused of the notion that there was any such requirement.

Or put another way: the junior person believed in the myth of PC but was later assured that it was just that: a myth.

fly_agaric wrote:

I don't think any "PC" excesses are the result of a big conspiracy or anything. More a combination of groupthink, faddishness, and peer-pressure.

I am not saying this is a conspiracy theory. I am saying it's a myth, that a lot of people instinctively believe exists but in reality doesn't. Myths can be powerful things. it matters not that they are true but that people believe them to be true

mountainyman · 27-03-2006 1:28pm

Hobbes wrote:

I would of said the reverse tbh. PC is generally a term to not upsetting others , although most refer to it beyond a point where it is upsetting the non-intended targets.

Metro Velvet has a slightly different perspective from having gone to university in a 'liberal' part of the USA. There PC becomes a competition for victim status as in the 'Irish Holocaust' * approach to the famine or that episode of the Sopranos where the Indians try to ban Columbus day.

Hobbes wrote:

For example "would you let your daughter marry a refugee" a straight out no based on that single sentance would be more racist then PC.

It wouldn't be at all PC to say no. A really PC person would say 'I would only let my daughter marry a refugee for that is the only way to redeem this carnival of oppression'. **

Hobbes wrote:

If you had more details on the subject then its more likely to give a valid answer. Example: Is she in love with him and reverse? Or is one of them doing to break the law? Do you have reservations on the persons income, etc.

That is just good sense. Metro Velvet contends that PC does exist but not really here, you see it in its real form in America.

Hobbes wrote:

The second one I would of thought a better question is do you call someone who wears fur a "socially challaged person when it comes to animals". That would be PC

It is funny but it it is only politically correct if fur wearers lay claim to victim status.

I think in the sense that Metro Velvet means it PC is a dead shark.
MM

*I don't want to get into whether or not the famine is like the holocaust or the extent to which the ENglish engineered it.

**This makes no sense.

The Corinthian · 27-03-2006 2:10pm

Snickers Man wrote:

I am not saying this is a conspiracy theory. I am saying it's a myth, that a lot of people instinctively believe exists but in reality doesn't. Myths can be powerful things. it matters not that they are true but that people believe them to be true

Of course, simply because some of the excesses of political correctness are myths, does not imply that they all are. Here are a few true examples:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niggardly
http://www.snopes.com/racial/language/language.asp
http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/master.asp

Additionally, I’ve come across it a few times over the years; the replacement of the term ‘tinker’ with ‘traveller’ is one example as was the renaming of the ladies toilets in UCD to women’s toilets in the 1990’s.

Another are where political correctness seems to be exerting an influence is in the creation of ideological ‘sacred cows’. To varying degrees, debate is not tolerated on topics such as Racism or the Jewish Holocaust. Similar censorship has been sought for other topics, such as abortion (where some pro-choice groups have felt that men should not take part in the debate).

You, on the other hand, seem to be in denial on the subject even though many people in this thread have reported first hand experience.

mountainyman · 27-03-2006 2:53pm

Your links are confusing and I don't think you have a clear idea of what you mean by Political Correctness unless it is the right to call a spade a ****ing ******. (Do the stars that you see derive from civility or political correctness)

The Corinthian wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niggardly.

This is a case of a mistake in the use of a word; it does not relate to PC. To call a colleague a 'nigg r' is clearly unaccpeptable and that is what the Washington DC civil service believed had happened.
This would seem to relate more to stupidity than political correctness.

The Corinthian wrote:

http://www.snopes.com/racial/language/language.asp

Unless you don't accept that:

snopes.com wrote:

"The very language by which we communicate can be used to reinforce prejudice, either through claims that common words are racially pejorative in origin, or through tales that demean others for misusing "our" language."

Then I don't see what the relevance of this point is. If you don't accept the above point that is odd I think, and characteristic of an axe grinder.

The Corinthian wrote:

http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/master.asp

This is not Politically Correct. To treat the terms Master and slave as pejorative is to attack BD SM and power exchange relationships as invalid. The antithesis of Political Correctness.

The Corinthian wrote:

Additionally, I’ve come across it a few times over the years; the replacement of the term ‘tinker’ with ‘traveller’

The term 'tinker' was replaced by 'itinerant' in the early 1980s, this far predates political correctness in Ireland. One could say that the replacement of the word 'itinerant' by 'traveller' is symptomatic of political correctness. but the phenomenon had already taken place once and what distinguishes the latter case from the former.

The Corinthian wrote:

...renaming of the ladies toilets in UCD to women’s toilets in the 1990’s.

This is a classic example of political correctness. Absolutely classic, but what is your point?

The Corinthian wrote:

...

Another are where political correctness seems to be exerting an influence is in the creation of ideological ‘sacred cows’. To varying degrees, debate is not tolerated on topics such as Racism or the Jewish Holocaust. Similar censorship has been sought for other topics, such as abortion (where some pro-choice groups have felt that men should not take part in the debate).

You, on the other hand, seem to be in denial on the subject even though many people in this thread have reported first hand experience.

The Corinthian wrote:

...
Another are where political correctness seems to be exerting an influence is in the creation of ideological ‘sacred cows’. To varying degrees, debate is not tolerated on topics such as Racism or the Jewish Holocaust. Similar censorship has been sought for other topics, such as abortion (where some pro-choice groups have felt that men should not take part in the debate).

Seeking to exclude men from debate on abortion is classic Political Correctness, but does it really go on and go on in Ireland? I am sure that
some feminist thinkers have said that men shouldn't get involved in the abortion debate, but decade old academic articles hardly indicate a rash of a Politically Correct thought police.

The Corinthian wrote:

...

You, on the other hand, seem to be in denial on the subject even though many people in this thread have reported first hand experience.

A seven year old sacking in the USA, a decade old name change of a toilet. Snickers Man perhaps was wrong to say that political correctness is a myth, but it is greatly exagerrated (especially by people who don't know what it is);)

I remain very sincerely yours

Mountainy Man
MM

Snickers Man · 27-03-2006 2:59pm

The Corinthian wrote:

Of course, simply because some of the excesses of political correctness are myths, does not imply that they all are. Here are a few true examples:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niggardly
http://www.snopes.com/racial/language/language.asp
http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/master.asp

Additionally, I’ve come across it a few times over the years; the replacement of the term ‘tinker’ with ‘traveller’ is one example as was the renaming of the ladies toilets in UCD to women’s toilets in the 1990’s.

Another are where political correctness seems to be exerting an influence is in the creation of ideological ‘sacred cows’. To varying degrees, debate is not tolerated on topics such as Racism or the Jewish Holocaust. Similar censorship has been sought for other topics, such as abortion (where some pro-choice groups have felt that men should not take part in the debate).

You, on the other hand, seem to be in denial on the subject even though many people in this thread have reported first hand experience.

Now hold on. I'm perfectly willing to accept that there has been a general social move away from tolerance of racist or pejorative terms such as ******, Wog, Coon, Paddy,Yid, Chick, Sheila, Toots, Tinker, Knacker etc etc (I hope those words all get through, I suspect that some of them will automatically be covered up.

That has all gone hand in hand with a greater democratisation and tolerance of self assertion. Which is no bad thing at all. I take it you are not asking for a return to the days when we could call a Wop a Wop?

What I'm saying is that the vast majority of the so-called silly excesses are either non existent, hugely exaggerated or else taken completely out of context; that there is no geat movement towards completely anodyne speech as the default method of talking, that such excesses as there are are usually thre result of a misapprehension like the case of the guy who wanted to rename the Christmas Lights, and that the motivating force, such as it is, that is driving this lunacy is a myth. Fuelled by shoddy media and troublemakers itching for a fight.

Political Correctness: is it just a modern myth?

Comments