Two-thirds of people say Ireland is too politically correct

dxhound2005

Looking at the dictionary definitions "political correctness" first appeared in the language around 1980 (Collins Dictionary). Designed to correct abusive terms which would have been in wider circulation then.

But its usage is declining in recent years, and it has mostly lost its original meaning, now being regarded generally as a bad thing. Unusually the Urban Dictionary has the best write ups on it.


https://www.onelook.com/?w=political+correctness&ls=a&loc=home_ac_political+corr

klaaaz

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yeah, I have to wonder what jurisdiction you’re posting from because what you’ve written about the absence of anti-discrimination legislation at an interview is absolutely and categorically untrue in Ireland at least, and in many Western countries it’s simply untrue. You’ve literally just made up crap and shared it online as truth when it’s absolutely false.

I'm posting from Ireland, thanks for your query.

Please point to the legislation where there is an anti-discrimination law at the interview stage?

One eyed Jack wrote:

Good thing for everyone else then that you’re only one person who by your own standards doesn’t speak on behalf of any community, nor would I regard you as representative of any community when you’re unaware that there absolutely exists in Irish law anti-discrimination legislation that means a person may well be prosecuted when someone gets offended that their preferred gender pronouns aren’t respected.

I nor you do speak on behalf of a community. Please point to the law where someone can be prosecuted where there is misuse of another person's preferred gender pronouns.

One eyed Jack wrote:

People don’t go to the trouble of getting a gender recognition certificate for nothing, it’s generally because they wish to have their identity recognised in Irish law so that they aren’t subjected to discrimination in circumstances like job interviews and some people would tell them there’s nothing can be done if they feel they have been discriminated against.

A GRC does not affect a job interviewees past unless they can legally change their name at every company they worked for, companies do not change the past names on their records. Of course a GRC changes the interviewee's present circumstances.

Wibbs

ogsjw wrote: »

shot fanwards without a paddle

I's soooo nicking that Og.

suicide_circus wrote: »

are you happy with the ssm and abortion referenda results?

do you think ireland is too politically correct?

these are 2 completely different and unrelated issues.

you could answer yes to both

+1. I voted yes for both and for both divorce referendums and the previous abortion referendums and I'm somewhere to the right of Mussolini in some minds. And I would be "politically incorrect" on a few subjects. I'm relatively polite around here...

I consider the Traveller matter woefully badly handled and the "ethnic status" a good example of it. How does one expect to integrate a sub culture by making them more excluded by such a label? Never mind the very real social issues affecting them and more, the reasons for it and it isn't all the "settled" people's issue as is usually claimed.

Multiculturalism is a busted flush. Good when there are ideas being exchanged, bad when it's people in large enough numbers. It's like fire; the right amount will serve to heat the house, too much and it risks burning it down. Doubly so when the wishy washy, let's hold hands together, cultural equivalence and western culture isn't so great y'know, notions of the progressives will be found wanting in the face of cultures that believe in themselves and their cultures. And well they should. Until they bitch about living in a different country's culture they ran to.

Feminism of the third wave variety is a political movement masquerading as "equality" and full of shit for the most part. Shit that can be knocked over with a feather in any debate.

And no, I don't want Cock Gobblers for Confucius or whatever reading Hansel and Gretel to kids. A fetish is for adults. Keep your identity politics out of the classroom.

Gaol terms are too damned low. Sod taking 178 previous convictions into account. Build more prisons, sentence more people(women and men BTW) and hit "minor" crimes early and hard. Though I'm not a death penalty type. On a gut level I would be and would pull the lever too. However and it's a bloody big however, I simply trust no legal system to not fuck up, and on the regular, even with the best of intentions. Though I would happily drop the trap on the guilty evil oxygen thieves, leading even one innocent man or woman to the noose is far too big a negative for me.

One eyed Jack

klaaaz wrote: »

I nor you do speak on behalf of a community.

Klaaaaz with the greatest of respect I can muster at this hour of the night because it’s late and I’m exhausted, I can see where this is going already and I am absolutely not doing this with you again. You spoke on behalf of people whom you claimed, and I quote -

klaaaz wrote: »

As for pronouns, they won't get offended by mistakes and there is no law against it anyway.

I never claimed to speak on behalf of any community, I was specifically referring to Irish legislation regarding employment law, harassment and discrimination, and we can thank Lydia Foy for her tireless efforts and numerous legal battles with the Irish State for the existence of legislation which recognises and protects the equal rights of people who are transgender in Irish society -

Lydia Annice Foy is an Irish trans woman notable for leading legal challenges regarding gender recognition in Ireland. In 1992 Foy had sex reassignment surgery, and began a 20-year battle to have her birth certificate reflect her gender identity. In 2007 the Irish High Court ruled that the relevant portions of the law of the Republic of Ireland were incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, but by February 2013 the law had not been changed and she began new legal proceedings to enforce the 2007 decision. As of 15 July 2015, Ireland has passed the Gender Recognition Bill 2014.

Lydia Foy

storker

Deleted User wrote: »

I would love to see a non discussion thread: Please define political correctness.

A lot of people are up in arms about it, yet can't or won't even explain what it is!

For me, political correctness can be summed up with, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

AKA: Don't be a dick.

Not really. Good manners, treating people decently and not being a dick already covered those areas. Political correctness as I see it is something else entirely. Unfortunately, it can be a bit of a moving target and does mean different things to different people, but for me it's a bit like art or pornography: hard to define*, but you know it when you see it. By way of illustration, here are some events that I would consider to have been prompted by political correctness:

Example 1: When I was living in the UK in the late 80s and someone high up in the Metropolitan Police announced the statistic that the majority of a certain type of crime was being committed by young black men. This was followed by a big hue and cry complete with de rigeur accusations of racism. I suspect it only died down because Twitter and Facebook didn't exist yet. It struck me at the time that, unpalatable as the claim might be, it might be more useful to examine it more closely to establish (a) whether it was actually correct, (b) what was likely to be the cause (e.g. poverty, culture etc) and (c) to decide what to do about it. But no, it was lost amid all the wagon-circling and virtue-signalling. That is what I see as political correctness.

Example 2: Scientist Tim Hunt makes a poor joke about women in laboratories and is hounded out of his job for it, his knowledge and talent discarded, so satisfy online mob outrage.

Example 3: Criticism of the Charlie Hebdo victims as having brought it on themselves with their satire.

Example 4: Sexual assaults in Cologne on New Years' Eve 2015/16 groups of men of north-African/Arabic appearance. The German press didn't cover it for days (perhaps understandable reticence, given Germany's history). In Ireland, Una Mulally declares that the assaults are actually the fault of "all men".

Example 5: A Canadian teaching assistant is disciplined for showing a video to her class that portrayed a contrary view of trans rights issues.

Each of these examples goes beyond good manners and "not being a dick" in that they involve twisting facts in line with agenda, ruining the careers of people who suddenly find themselves on the bien-pensants' naughty list. I endeavour to do unto others as I would have them do unto me and I do my best not to be a dick, but I'm still uncomfortable with the mindset that prompted the events described above. That's what I refer to as "political correctness".

The notion that opponents of political correctness are all just frustrated racists, homophobes and...er...dicks, is getting a bit old, by the way, and ids really just the overused right-wing "snowflake" jibe, but flying a different flag.

By the way, as someone who voted to repeal the 8th and also voted in favour of the marriage referendum, I'm sure some would see me as being too politically correct. Complicated, isn't it?



*And its manifestations can be quite varied. The historian Antony Beevor describes discussion with a man on a train in Russia in which the subject arose of the large number of Russians in German uniforms captured by the Red Army at Stalingrad. The man dismissed the subject claiming that no Russians worked for the Germans at Stalingrad. When Beevor outlined his evidence for the existence of such people, the man declared simply "Those were no longer Russians". Politicaly correctness, but a different flavour.

ogsjw

Nobelium wrote: »

Only when the public happen to vote as they are told to and predicted to. If not there is a new referendum held until they do.

Ye wha? As disapproving as I am of the Lisbon shenanigans, that is not par for the course for our referendums involving human rights... told to by which shadowy cabal? The church has had this country by the knickers for decades and several (if not all?) of the referendums went against their feelings on the matter... the public spoke. Not because 'they'd have to vote again otherwise' but because it's no one's bloody business what gay people do with their lives or what women do with their bodies. Frankly those should have been high court decisions/cases anyway, because it really isn't the public's business, but that's neither here nor there. The Irish people still made the moderate and progressive choice.

klaaaz

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Klaaaaz with the greatest of respect I can muster at this hour of the night because it’s late and I’m exhausted, I can see where this is going already and I am absolutely not doing this with you again. You spoke on behalf of people whom you claimed, and I quote -

I never claimed to speak on behalf of any community, I was specifically referring to Irish legislation regarding employment law, harassment and discrimination, and we can thank Lydia Foy for her tireless efforts and numerous legal battles with the Irish State for the existence of legislation which recognises and protects the equal rights of people who are transgender in Irish society -

Lydia Foy

One Eyed Jack my dear friend, that is employment law. People who go to job interviews are not employed unless hired. Can you please point out where there is an anti-discrimination law at the interview stage of applying for a job at the interview stage and also please state where there is a law prosecuting people for using the wrong pronouns. (in Ireland of course)

One eyed Jack

klaaaz wrote: »

One Eyed Jack my dear friend, that is employment law. People who go to job interviews are not employed unless hired. Can you please point out where there is an anti-discrimination law at the interview stage of applying for a job at the interview stage and also please state where there is a law prosecuting people for using the wrong pronouns. (in Ireland of course)

I love you too klaaaz, but we can’t keep doing this


In relation to employment legislation and prospective employees (you know, interview candidates who are not yet employed by a prospective employer), it’s specifically covered by Section 8 of the Employment Equality Act 1998 -

8.—(1) In relation to—

(a) access to employment,

(b) conditions of employment,

(c) training or experience for or in relation to employment,

(d) promotion or re-grading, or

(e) classification of posts,

an employer shall not discriminate against an employee or prospective employee and a provider of agency work shall not discriminate against an agency worker.

...


(5) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), an employer shall be taken to discriminate against an employee or prospective employee in relation to access to employment if the employer discriminates against the employee or prospective employee—

(a) in any arrangements the employer makes for the purpose of deciding to whom employment should be offered, or

(b) by specifying, in respect of one person or class of persons, entry requirements for employment which are not specified in respect of other persons or classes of person.


(6) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), an employer shall be taken to discriminate against an employee or prospective employee in relation to conditions of employment if, on any of the discriminatory grounds, the employer does not offer or afford to that employee or prospective employee or to a class of persons of whom he or she is one—

(a) the same terms of employment (other than remuneration and pension rights),

(b) the same working conditions, and

(c) the same treatment in relation to overtime, shift work, short time, transfers, lay-offs, redundancies, dismissals and disciplinary measures,

as the employer offers or affords to another person or class of persons, where the circumstances in which both such persons or classes are or would be employed are not materially different.

And in relation to the potential to prosecute people for misgendering a person, again that comes under numerous statutes in Irish legislation, including but not limited to employment law and harassment. A person could be prosecuted on numerous grounds.

klaaaz

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I love you too klaaaz, but we can’t keep doing this

Love u more! :P (and hugs! )

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I
In relation to employment legislation and prospective employees (you know, interview candidates who are not yet employed by a prospective employer), it’s specifically covered by Section 8 of the Employment Equality Act 1998 -

A candidate cannot prove in an interview that there has been discrimination, as often has been the case the excuse has been "we'll keep you on file" amongst many excuses a recruiter can claim without the recruiter themselves actually stating the reason for non-hiring.

One eyed Jack wrote:

And in relation to the potential to prosecute people for misgendering a person, again that comes under numerous statutes in Irish legislation, including but not limited to employment law and harassment. A person could be prosecuted on numerous grounds.

I have not seen this legislation, care to elaborate?

Seathrun66

klaaaz wrote: »

Where do the 69% get their news info from? They certainly do not vote for "anti-PC" political parties so my point stands.

Exactly. It's not contradictory to say that Ireland is too PC yet also vote in favour of liberal parties and referenda. As most of the population regularly do.

One eyed Jack

klaaaz wrote: »

Love u more! :P (and hugs! )

A candidate cannot prove in an interview that there has been discrimination, as often has been the case the excuse has been "we'll keep you on file" amongst many excuses a recruiter can claim without the recruiter themselves actually stating the reason for non-hiring.

They can, and they do? There are numerous examples I can think of off the top of my head, but here are a few examples -

Many of Ireland's most reputable employers have found themselves in murky legal waters due to the manner in which they handled recruitment and selection processes. The list now includes Superquinn, the Revenue Commissioners, University College Dublin, the Coombe Hospital, Gateaux, Independent Newspapers, the Eastern and Southern Health Boards, Nenagh Urban District Council, the Medical Council, the Central Statistics Office, Donegal County Council and VEC and Laois VEC.

• Ryanair was ordered to pay €8,000 compensation to the Equality Tribunal for placing an advert for a ‘young and dynamic professional’.

• Lidl was ordered to pay €5,000 compensation to the complainant when they advertised for a graduate with no more than 2/3 years’ experience.

• Trinity College Dublin also found itself in trouble when job applicant Lisa Rodmell was referred to as the "lady electrician" at an interview board.

• Clonmel Healthcare's interview discussion with Majella McDonald about her marital and family circumstances, resulted in the organisation having to pay for her `distress'.

• Regarding the appointment of a consultant obstetrician/gynaecologist to the Mater and Rotunda hospitals, the hospitals were rebuked for their interviewers' "lack of any notes, failure to agree criteria prior to interview, and the lack of any transparency in relation to the selection procedure." The complainant claimed that one member of the interview board made the comment: "that's fine, sink the sisters", after she responded that she wouldn't be interested in doing voluntary work in the hospital's Sexual Assault Treatment Unit. Interestingly enough, male applicants weren't asked whether they would do this work. Furthermore, the interview board "complimented" Dr. Gleeson for having "had her babies". Not surprisingly, the Court ordered the hospitals to pay her £50,000 compensation.

While this Equality Act forces employers to explain themselves in the event of a legal challenge, it is also interesting that in 1998 the Freedom of Information Act took effect. This gives job applicants "the right to be given reasons for decisions taken by public bodies that affect them."


Taken from here - https://www.enterprise-ireland.com/en/Events/OurEvents/Finance-for-Growth/Recruitment-and-Selection-Guidelines.pdf

I have not seen this legislation, care to elaborate?

Section 10 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997 -

10.—(1) Any person who, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, by any means including by use of the telephone, harasses another by persistently following, watching, pestering, besetting or communicating with him or her, shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) For the purposes of this section a person harasses another where—

(a) he or she, by his or her acts intentionally or recklessly, seriously interferes with the other's peace and privacy or causes alarm, distress or harm to the other, and

(b) his or her acts are such that a reasonable person would realise that the acts would seriously interfere with the other’s peace and privacy or cause alarm, distress or harm to the other.

From here - http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1997/act/26/enacted/en/print#sec10

robindch

DelaneyIn wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/two-thirds-of-people-say-ireland-is-too-politically-correct-1.3871647
"And 69 per cent agreed with the statement that “society is too politically correct”.

I look forward to the time when as much as 1% of the population can define "politically correct" so that it makes the slightest bit of sense.

dxhound2005

robindch wrote: »

I look forward to the time when as much as 1% of the population can define "politically correct" so that it makes the slightest bit of sense.

I'll have a go, because I checked out the definition in lots of dictionaries. I posted a link earlier in the thread.

It means being careful not to offend people, and it has its origins from around 40 years ago when offensive language was more common. Since then it has become discredited because of how some people have used or misused it.

klaaaz

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They can, and they do? There are numerous examples I can think of off the top of my head, but here are a few examples -

Many of Ireland's most reputable employers have found themselves in murky legal waters due to the manner in which they handled recruitment and selection processes. The list now includes Superquinn, the Revenue Commissioners, University College Dublin, the Coombe Hospital, Gateaux, Independent Newspapers, the Eastern and Southern Health Boards, Nenagh Urban District Council, the Medical Council, the Central Statistics Office, Donegal County Council and VEC and Laois VEC.

• Ryanair was ordered to pay €8,000 compensation to the Equality Tribunal for placing an advert for a ‘young and dynamic professional’.

• Lidl was ordered to pay €5,000 compensation to the complainant when they advertised for a graduate with no more than 2/3 years’ experience.

• Trinity College Dublin also found itself in trouble when job applicant Lisa Rodmell was referred to as the "lady electrician" at an interview board.

• Clonmel Healthcare's interview discussion with Majella McDonald about her marital and family circumstances, resulted in the organisation having to pay for her `distress'.

• Regarding the appointment of a consultant obstetrician/gynaecologist to the Mater and Rotunda hospitals, the hospitals were rebuked for their interviewers' "lack of any notes, failure to agree criteria prior to interview, and the lack of any transparency in relation to the selection procedure." The complainant claimed that one member of the interview board made the comment: "that's fine, sink the sisters", after she responded that she wouldn't be interested in doing voluntary work in the hospital's Sexual Assault Treatment Unit. Interestingly enough, male applicants weren't asked whether they would do this work. Furthermore, the interview board "complimented" Dr. Gleeson for having "had her babies". Not surprisingly, the Court ordered the hospitals to pay her £50,000 compensation.

While this Equality Act forces employers to explain themselves in the event of a legal challenge, it is also interesting that in 1998 the Freedom of Information Act took effect. This gives job applicants "the right to be given reasons for decisions taken by public bodies that affect them."

Taken from here - https://www.enterprise-ireland.com/en/Events/OurEvents/Finance-for-Growth/Recruitment-and-Selection-Guidelines.pdf

Alot of them were based on written advertisements. There is nothing in a face to face interview to prove actual discrimination unless one records the interview which itself is illegal unless it has the consent of the interviewer. Also as to any of the conclusions from interviews, it needs to exclude internal interviews within a company as an internal interviewee has more rights that an external interviewee.

One eyed Jack wrote:

Section 10 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997 -
From here - http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1997/act/26/enacted/en/print#sec10

That lists specifically harassment, nothing about misgendering a person.

robindch

dxhound2005 wrote: »

It means being careful not to offend people, and it has its origins from around 40 years ago when offensive language was more common. Since then it has become discredited because of how some people have used or misused it.

I don't disagree that there are definitions around the place, or that the idea doesn't have some merit - actually, it's really more about people treating and speaking about others with some basic, civil respect. The problems arise when some less-than-honest people define words to suit themselves so that they can shut down other people, and when further people still mischaracterize *that* as a general right for anybody to shut down everybody. That's not what it is, or should be, or was. It's just "respect", but given a longer and sillier name.

However, I'll still put money down that less than 5% of the population could give a coherent definition, or, having been asked, could avoid making some lame gag about it having "gone mad". Maybe the interviewers should have asked the respondents to define it first, then ask whether whatever nonsense they'd defined "had gone too far".

Regardless of that, the term should be woken up at dawn tomorrow, taken out into the back yard and permanently buried in a hole 1,000 feet deep.

Junkyard Tom

Ever since too much political correctness came along I've noticed that my car gets a lot fewer miles to the gallon.

How Soon Is Now

I have often taught of getting into politics.


Ive always feel like i say and believe in things people feel strong about but don't want to speak from there own lips!

How Soon Is Now

How Soon Is Now wrote: »

I have often taught of getting into politics.


Ive always feel like i say and believe in things people feel strong about but don't want to speak from there own lips!

If you don't know the difference between taught and thought best not..

How Soon Is Now

Deleted User wrote: »

If you don't know the difference between taught and thought best not..

I really wanna say something.... but i wont.


Your not the first wont be the last.

kowloon

Deleted User wrote: »

I would love to see a non discussion thread: Please define political correctness.

A lot of people are up in arms about it, yet can't or won't even explain what it is!

For me, political correctness can be summed up with, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

AKA: Don't be a dick.

Some see 'The PC Brigade' as anyone who calls them on being a dick. People arguing for freedom of speech are constantly undermined by people who want no repercussions for acting the prick.

Mad_maxx

Deleted User wrote: »

I would love to see a non discussion thread: Please define political correctness.

A lot of people are up in arms about it, yet can't or won't even explain what it is!

For me, political correctness can be summed up with, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

AKA: Don't be a dick.

Political correctness is about assessing, judging and dealing with someone ( or some group) based on whether they appear on the lefts sacred cow list and what rank they hold on same list ( hierarchy of victimhood)

It's a rotten ideology as it explicitly holds people to different standards based on race, sex, sexuality, cultural background and nationality, it's also a terribly pessimistic creed in that it expects so little of some (bigotry of low expectations)

Baschically its about dividing people up, hence the identity politics activism, it is manifestly nothing to do with promoting equality

dxhound2005

robindch wrote: »

I don't disagree that there are definitions around the place, or that the idea doesn't have some merit - actually, it's really more about people treating and speaking about others with some basic, civil respect. The problems arise when some less-than-honest people define words to suit themselves so that they can shut down other people, and when further people still mischaracterize *that* as a general right for anybody to shut down everybody. That's not what it is, or should be, or was. It's just "respect", but given a longer and sillier name.

However, I'll still put money down that less than 5% of the population could give a coherent definition, or, having been asked, could avoid making some lame gag about it having "gone mad". Maybe the interviewers should have asked the respondents to define it first, then ask whether whatever nonsense they'd defined "had gone too far".

Regardless of that, the term should be woken up at dawn tomorrow, taken out into the back yard and permanently buried in a hole 1,000 feet deep.

I gave a straightforward definition, and you have expanded on it. Why do you think we are part of some 1% elite who could do that, and that 99% of the population would fail to do the same?

Nobelium

kowloon wrote: »

Some see 'The PC Brigade' as anyone who calls them on being a dick. People arguing for freedom of speech are constantly undermined by people who want no repercussions for acting the prick.

What's politically correct depends not on what is right or wrong, true or untrue, but on what particular political opinion is permitted in the hierarchy you are operating in.

coolshannagh28

Political correctness is a powerful force at the moment as it is capable of directing and getting policy enacted by govt , it will remain correct until it is proved wrong and this may happen due to recession , war or a general realisation by the voting public that it is damaging their freedoms or livelihood , however as it is a powerful force among the young it may prove to be a resilient political philosophy.

ogsjw

coolshannagh28 wrote: »

it will remain correct until it is proved wrong

Again,



1. What is your definition of the term?



and



2. If it could be proven 'wrong' it would've been in the last five years. You have a very poor understanding of progress I think.

ogsjw

Mad_maxx wrote: »

It's a rotten ideology

Unlike the other one, which only creates mass shooters :pac:


The 'ideology' of moderate progressivism does not create anything you asserted; only a small amount of people who claim to be about that, but are actually as extreme as the alt-right.

McDave

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Looking at the dictionary definitions "political correctness" first appeared in the language around 1980 (Collins Dictionary). Designed to correct abusive terms which would have been in wider circulation then.

But its usage is declining in recent years, and it has mostly lost its original meaning, now being regarded generally as a bad thing. Unusually the Urban Dictionary has the best write ups on it.


https://www.onelook.com/?w=political+correctness&ls=a&loc=home_ac_political+corr

It started off as a worthwhile idea, coming from a good place. A shield against prejudice, making space for those getting a raw deal from thoughtless majority insensitivities.

But I think in recent times it has become more of a method for ‘new conservative’ social professionals to channel debate onto their own ideological territory, and shut down ‘counter revolutionary’ responses. PC has regrettably become a partisan tool of left-liberal practice. Which is a shame, as I think it was intended to take the heat out off discussing difference.

El_Duderino 09

kneemos wrote: »

Changing too quickly? Catching up with the twentieth century more like.

Yeah things would be changing too quickly for some people no matter how slowly it happened. People who think tradition means not changing are Completely missing the point.

I always think it's funny that the things that were "PC gone mad" in the past are now grand but now those people have something new to complain about. They never recognise that they have actually changed their stance because they were on the wrong side of the issue.

10 years ago the notion of gay marriage was PC gone mad. Now it's fine and has absolutely no deleterious effect on hereto marriage. The people who thought it was PC gone mad then have probably become fine with it and have now found something else to get their knickers in a twist about.

Some people will always want to put the brakes on progress.

dxhound2005

McDave wrote: »

It started off as a worthwhile idea, coming from a good place. A shield against prejudice, making space for those getting a raw deal from thoughtless majority insensitivities.

But I think in recent times it has become more of a method for ‘new conservative’ social professionals to channel debate onto their own ideological territory, and shut down ‘counter revolutionary’ responses. PC has regrettably become a partisan tool of left-liberal practice. Which is a shame, as I think it was intended to take the heat out off discussing difference.

And has been demonstrated by a lot of responses here, it is well recognised as a discredited idea when misused in the way you outlined. Guardianistas, Snowflakes, Avocado Munchers are terms which show the contempt that attracts. And the backlash against so called Safe Spaces in universities There is no need for us to worry about the PC Brigade taking over.

coolshannagh28

ogsjw wrote: »

Again,



1. What is your definition of the term?



and



2. If it could be proven 'wrong' it would've been in the last five years. You have a very poor understanding of progress I think.

You are not capable of comprehending my points.

ogsjw

coolshannagh28 wrote: »

You are not capable of comprehending my points.

Try me.

coolshannagh28

ogsjw wrote: »

Try me.

You perceive yourself to be a progressive and see political correctness as beneficial , I say political correctness will thrive so long as it has govt support and the backing of the intelligentsia and is not knocked off course but something unforeseen . A political philosophy or idea is only correct ie Maoism or any other ism so long as it can be imposed and made stick, peaceably or otherwise.

ogsjw

coolshannagh28 wrote: »

I say political correctness will thrive so long as it has govt support and the backing of the intelligentsia

Define 'intelligentsia' for me.

Nobelium

ogsjw wrote: »

Define 'intelligentsia' for me.

noun. usually the intelligentsia. treated as singular or plural Intellectuals or highly educated people as a group, especially when regarded as possessing culture and political influence. 'a distrust of the intelligentsia and of theoretical learning' 'the belief that the liberal intelligentsia is ruining the country'
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/intelligentsia

coolshannagh28

ogsjw wrote: »

Define 'intelligentsia' for me.

You are asking too many questions ,this is a discussion forum .
I also pointed out that as political correctness also commands widespread support among the young it can last ,as traditionally power rested with the older , wealthier more conservative politically connected , however the internet and the rise of social media has passed power to the young who should have more of it.

Gimme A Pound

Nowhere near as much as Sweden.

I think it seems like a rather simplistic assessment of Ireland. What's their criteria? Ireland seems in the centre, give or take, to me.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

suicide_circus wrote: »

are you happy with the ssm and abortion referenda results?

do you think ireland is too politically correct?

these are 2 completely different and unrelated issues.

you could answer yes to both

Aye, somebody who feels neutral about the marriage equality referendum might just feel like that’s how it always should have been.

Nobelium

suicide_circus wrote: »

are you happy with the ssm and abortion referenda results?

do you think ireland is too politically correct?

these are 2 completely different and unrelated issues.

you could answer yes to both

you could . . . but the second yes would not be deemed a politically correct or permitted opinion and would loose you substantial pc brownie points.

Chris_Heilong

Political correctness is a form of censorship which forces one groups will on others, Created in Soviet Russia in order to control decent. Is is a dangerous tool that erodes expression, somehow it has been adopted by the left wingers as a tool to keep a certain level of control, with Silicon Valley pushing out and promoting their local brand of political correctness on a worldwide stage. It can lead to a very anti science stance, who is now going to pursue differences in the sexes or will cover up their findings if they do not go along with the politically correct narrative. We also see issues when a crime has been committed and all the news papers no longer identify the persons race as a descriptor as they would in the past, If they give any info they might say 'an Asian man in his 20s' oh come on, so are they Indian , middle eastern, Chinese, filipino, thai? This sort of PC is preventing justice in a case like this. Comedy has taken a nose dive especially stand up as children are being brought up with the belief that words equate to violence so to PC minded individuals want to destroy any comedy where sex/gender/religion there might be the punchline, straight/white/male/christian seem to be the only safe targets these days and I think that most of us that fall into any of those categories are fine with that as we know it is a joke.

when political correctness is in opposition to common science then it becomes dangerous to society.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

klaaaz wrote: »

What images could they be? Society is about including everyone for the better of all.

Eh, there is nothing that can be done about being discriminated at the interview stage of a job. No equality under the law stuff applies there. Of course once a person is actually employed, there is protection from discrimination.

Not totally true. If it’s explicitly stated in the interview that you are not being hired for one of the, I think, nine areas you can't discriminate against, you can take legal action and win. Here’s an example:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/solas-employee-awarded-20k-in-discrimination-case-1.3368540?mode=amp

ogsjw

coolshannagh28 wrote: »

You are asking too many questions ,this is a discussion forum .

How can someone have a discussion with you if they have no clue what you're on about? That would make two people talking about things they have no clue about. :pac:

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Pythagorean wrote: »

My essential point is this; that political correctness sees things in very black and white terms, e.g the example of the rape victim referred to by George Hook. She is automatically categorized as a victim, regardless of the circumstances, and anyone who dares question this assumption is hounded out. Kevin Myers, by remarking about Vanessa Feltz, fell foul of the same mindset.

Well, I think the guy was acquitted in that case but in what circumstances is somebody who has been raped not a victim? In the other examples people usually bring up here, people are still victims of burglary, car theft, assault etc. even if they were careless.

meeeeh

ogsjw wrote: »

How can someone have a discussion with you if they have no clue what you're on about? That would make two people talking about things they have no clue about. :pac:

Political correctness is when some topics are not talked about in fear of insulting someone. I was in enough spats with morons on boards claiming that Muslims rape our women and similar nonsense. I hate that type of racism or nationalism, however there are valid questions to be asked. For example about where money for new Dublin mosque is coming from (Pakistan, Saudi Arabia). I think Europe in general, including Ireland, has to discuss what type of multi culturalism we want to have. Do we wand communities arriving to Ireland preserve their values or do we expect them to adapt to ours and where do we draw the line.

ogsjw

I wasn't talking to you, which explains why you couldn't define 'intelligencia' for me.

freshpopcorn

If if you are in a situation with friends and you can't make a comment without them jumping down your throat or trying to get your fired/shaming you online. Make new friends. Even in work places that would be very PC. You'd be amazed at stuff you'd hear some of the employees say behind their colleagues back or to the ones they know they can trust.

ogsjw

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Make new friends.

Because they deserve better than you, if they can adhere to the norms of Social Contract Theory but you don't seem to be able to.



I agree, if you can't work succesfully in an office environment without passing homophobic, sexist or racist comments then go re-train for blue collar work/working solo. Whether you work with minorities or not.

freshpopcorn

ogsjw wrote: »

Because they deserve better than you, if they can adhere to the norms Social Contract Theory but you don't seem to be able to.



I agree, if you can't work succesfully in an office environment without passing homophobic, sexist or racist comments then go re-train for blue collar work/working solo. Whether you work with minorities or not.

Also if you can't work successfully without getting offended easily or can't cope with people questioning social issues. Perhaps you should consider looking for another job also!

Pac1Man

I would like to believe that we have reached peak ridiculousness regarding PC culture and I think we have.

The majority of people in this country are fairly centered and the public are obviously sick of hearing these physically and mentally weak fanatics shout the loudest, backed up by RTE and the like which makes them seem a lot bigger than they are.

The far left are cancerous. They are reactionary, lack any sort of self awareness and have no creative thought process which would allow them to have a measured opinion.

ogsjw

ogsjw wrote: »

Because they deserve better than you, if they can adhere to the norms of Social Contract Theory but you don't seem to be able to.



I agree, if you can't work succesfully in an office environment without passing homophobic, sexist or racist comments then go re-train for blue collar work/working solo. Whether you work with minorities or not.

People throughout history have adhered to the social contact. That's included slavery and discrimination. It's a weak basis for an argument.

meeeeh

ogsjw wrote: »

Because they deserve better than you, if they can adhere to the norms of Social Contract Theory but you don't seem to be able to.



I agree, if you can't work succesfully in an office environment without passing homophobic, sexist or racist comments then go re-train for blue collar work/working solo. Whether you work with minorities or not.

I always find people who are most afraid to offend anyone will be the least likely to befriend them. They will be proper, respectful and yet you always get the message you are not one of them. They constantly keep guard around you.