# Political Correctness



## Gmart (Aug 5, 2008)

Another thread got distracted by this book and its reviews, so I have copied the first few posts here, as it is better suited to here:



Gmarthews said:


> I'm currently reading a book on this subject called "The Retreat of Reason: Political Correctness and the Corruption of Public Debate in Modern Britain" (see here), it's about how political correctness and an almost luddite anti-logic/rationality attitude is dumbing down our society.






Gmarthews said:


> Dunno where you got that quote from, but it is actually really interesting.





butchersapron said:


> From Index on Censorship, Vol. 35, No. 4, 2006, a review by Julian Petley. In full here. He really does not like the pamphlet one bit.





butchersapron said:


> From Index on Censorship, Vol. 35, No. 4, 2006, a review by Julian Petley. In full here. He really does not like the pamphlet one bit.



Wow! He really doesn't 

I don't agree with the whole article, but the last line is illustrative:



> the BNP website is selling The Retreat of Reason, and why it is lauded there as a 'powerful critique of political (sic) correct thinking', 'long overdue' and an 'excellent read'. Curiously, this encomium is missing from the Amazon reviews page.



Which is a good point, and of course anything the BNP like we all have to dislike automatically.

Yet the book itself may indeed be grabbed by individuals with their own agenda, but Browne actually comments on this. 

One of the stories he uses is that the infection of AIDS is down to African Immigrants coming over here and being diagnosed with AIDS, thus adding to our infection stats. He recognises that this could be used by the BNP, but states that this fact should not distract us from the facts. If AIDS is really being spread by African Immigrants then surely this should be advertised and damn political correctness.

And I am with him on that. Being PC shouldn 't distract us from the facts, whatever the consequences.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 5, 2008)

Gmarthews said:


> Another thread got distracted by this book and its reviews, so I have copied the first few posts here, as it is better suited to here:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



of course not. But....well stuart lee puts it more succinctly than I can


----------



## Gmart (Aug 5, 2008)

Except that Stuart starts with the phrase:


> The kind of people who use the phrase 'political correctness gone mad are usually using the phrase as a cover to attack minorities they disagree with...



And that's not what we're talking about here, so it is irrelevant.

What we have here is political correctness actually stopping us from looking at the facts as they are.

If African Immigrants are a major factor in the spread of AIDS then we should be told, rather than have it swept under the mat by the PC brigade...


----------



## camouflage (Aug 5, 2008)

Some interesting points. It's been noted that many pedophiles in this country are white males. It's about time we advertised this more in the education system to protect children, blast all that political correctness nonesense!


prat.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 5, 2008)

of course we should, but where is the mythical PC brigade sweeping this under the carpet? I don't see them, or are  they out busy policing the 'silent majority' lol


----------



## quimcunx (Aug 5, 2008)

Gmarthews said:


> Being PC shouldn 't distract us from the facts



Agree.



> whatever the consequences.



Agree only in a utopian world, which, if it existed, wouldn't require political correctness in the first place. 

It would be good to state, matter of factly, that immigration by HIV people is something that increases the population within context and deal with that appropriately, as long as this wasn't used by writer or reader to (further) castigate a particular group, but it's not. 



Political correctness is hardly the only thing to distract us from the facts.  

Lots of things influence which facts are represented to us and how. Political correctness is, in part, an effort, to counterbalance some of these. 


Stewart Lee is spot on too.


----------



## Boris Sprinkler (Aug 5, 2008)

£6.50 for a "small pamphlet"!   another case of rip off Britain gone mad.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Aug 5, 2008)

This is such an old argument though - the idea that British institutions are controlled by a liberal / left-wing elite.

I remember Channel Four had a Banned season in the early 90s and they allowed half-an-hour for some right-winger to espouse these opinions...

As the reviewer points out, a lot of it is a phantom menace that doesn't exist, but occasional stupidity does infect official procedures... Most people though laugh it off as just that - stupid. People like Anthony Browne spend their waking hours fuming over it... as they see it as an ideological struggle.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 5, 2008)

quimcunx said:


> Stewart Lee is spot on too.



Of course he is, in that he is talking about a different subject...

I still maintain that the public has a right to be informed of the risks, and if the infection of AIDS is linked to African Immigrants then we should not prevent ourselves from recognising this.

This is really quite a simple point, and not worthy of such debate. It is a matter of balance. Recognising that Political correctness has a good lesson, but that it is not a complete answer to all problems.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 5, 2008)

Not worthy of debate? _You_ started the thread and used it as your main supporting example.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 5, 2008)

butchersapron said:


> Noth worthy of debate? _You_ stated the thread and used it as your main supoorting example.



How anti logic of me


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 5, 2008)

Does it suddenly turn into Tolstoy?


----------



## Structaural (Aug 5, 2008)

:d


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 5, 2008)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Does it suddenly turn into Tolstoy?



You've outed yourself now, Will.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 14, 2008)

Accurately informing the population of the risks of life is one of the prime directives of government surely.

I would prefer accurate data, released to the press and discussed. 

Indeed I might even suggest that such transparency is quite important.


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 16, 2008)

The phrase "Political correctness gone mad" is a fig leaf to conceal a range of hidden and not-so-hidden discourses about ethnicity, gender and sexuality. There is also a concomitant desire to roll back the clock to a time when calling a black or Asian person a "darkie" was acceptable and treating women as the inferior sex was the norm.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 16, 2008)

Gmarthews said:


> Accurately informing the population of the risks of life is one of the prime directives of government surely.
> 
> I would prefer accurate data, released to the press and discussed.
> 
> Indeed I might even suggest that such transparency is quite important.


Exactly how is this statement of the bleedin obvious supposed to be used? The continent of Africa has far higher levels of HIV infection than any other continent. Therefore, of all immigrants into any country, those from the continent of Africa will have the highest level of infection by far. Well fuck me.


----------



## Pigeon (Aug 16, 2008)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Exactly how is this statement of the bleedin obvious supposed to be used? The continent of Africa has far higher levels of HIV infection than any other continent. Therefore, of all immigrants into any country, those from the continent of Africa will have the highest level of infection by far. Well fuck me.



Quite. And which is a very, very different point to ugly piece of racist smearing that GMarthews spouts, to the effect that African immigrants are  _spreading _HIV.

And if he wants a proper discussion about infection control, it's a fact that African women are being forced into prostituion as the direct result of immigration policies leaving them homeless and destitute on the UK's streets- and consequently, obviously, putting _them_ at increased risk of infection. Does he blame "political correctness" for the media silence on that little beauty?


----------



## Gmart (Aug 16, 2008)

Pigeon said:


> ugly piece of racist smearing



And the pattern continues.

I don't discriminate against anyone because of the colour of their skin. 

If there was ANY country which had a high incidence of AIDS and HIV, then with immigration, as has been noted here already by others, this would aid the spread. If the infection rates in the UK are down to this as has been suggested, then this, along with the condom based safe sex message should be known by the population. Informing the population of the risks they face is far and away more important than pandering to the PC brigade. To insult me just shows how against free open debate you are, especially when it is a pretty obvious point I am making, see here for the UN Health Officials Saying the same thing.


> it's a fact that African women are being forced into prostitution...


I have long been in favour of the legalisation of this industry to bring more power to the workers and to enable better control of disease. (See this thread)


----------



## Gmart (Aug 16, 2008)

nino_savatte said:


> The phrase "Political correctness gone mad" is a fig leaf to conceal a range of hidden and not-so-hidden discourses about ethnicity, gender and sexuality. There is also a concomitant desire to roll back the clock to a time when calling a black or Asian person a "darkie" was acceptable and treating women as the inferior sex was the norm.



I just don't buy this. The implication of what you are saying is that political correctness can never go too far... 

Or worse that it is _immune _to all criticism.


----------



## fela fan (Aug 16, 2008)

Gmarthews said:


> Which is a good point, and of course anything the BNP like we all have to dislike automatically.



I'm not sure about that.

I think it better to listen carefully to their language use within the context they speak about, then you can make the attempt to answer their horrible persuasions with a better clarity of reply.


----------



## fela fan (Aug 16, 2008)

Gmarthews said:


> Except that Stuart starts with the phrase:
> 
> 
> And that's not what we're talking about here, so it is irrelevant.
> ...



Indeed.

I read that the government have banned the use of 'obese' in reports by teachers of children at school. They have to say instead 'over-weight'.

Orwell called it political language that is designed to shut down thinking: both in the speaker (ie the politician), and his/her audience.

PC is exactly that.


----------



## fela fan (Aug 16, 2008)

Gmarthews

Good posts.


----------



## Autonomous (Aug 16, 2008)

nino_savatte said:


> The phrase "Political correctness gone mad" is a fig leaf to conceal a range of hidden and not-so-hidden discourses about ethnicity, gender and sexuality. There is also a concomitant desire to roll back the clock to a time when calling a black or Asian person a "darkie" was acceptable and treating women as the inferior sex was the norm.



Good post. Pretty much all the papers and individuals who cry about political correctness are pushing jingoistic, sexist, homophobic, anti-labour, Queen and country, law 'n' order rubbish. 'Political correctness' is a great way of avoiding criticism for pushing nasty views. If I call someone on their racist language or sexist behaviour they can turn around and call me 'PC' and that makes it _my_ problem and not theirs. They're not racist or sexist, it's just that I'm PC. Pretty clever if you think about it.

Having said that, there are a few clueless middle class types who like to think they're helping by trying to push bizzarre bits of language and behaviour. And some people on the Left think they can make prejudice go away by shutting down debate, which is crazy. But if you read Private Eye they sometimes show how the gutter press spin or just manufacture a lot of these 'mad' stories.


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 16, 2008)

Gmarthews said:


> I just don't buy this. The implication of what you are saying is that political correctness can never go too far...
> 
> Or worse that it is _immune _to all criticism.



No, that is not what I'm saying. The very phrase "political correctness" is itself a problematic. However those that claim that "political correctness is going mad" often do so because they see no problem in abusing others on the grounds of ethnicity or gender....that has been my experience. I think it is also used in order to close down discourses/debates as well as hide certain discourses from view.


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 16, 2008)

Autonomous said:


> Good post. Pretty much all the papers and individuals who cry about political correctness are pushing jingoistic, sexist, homophobic, anti-labour, Queen and country, law 'n' order rubbish. 'Political correctness' is a great way of avoiding criticism for pushing nasty views. If I call someone on their racist language or sexist behaviour they can turn around and call me 'PC' and that makes it _my_ problem and not theirs. They're not racist or sexist, it's just that I'm PC. Pretty clever if you think about it.
> 
> Having said that, there are a few clueless middle class types who like to think they're helping by trying to push bizzarre bits of language and behaviour. And some people on the Left think they can make prejudice go away by shutting down debate, which is crazy. But if you read Private Eye they sometimes show how the gutter press spin or just manufacture a lot of these 'mad' stories.



Quite. I think what some of these people object to is civility and tolerance towards others as well as wanting to be able to abuse others without the fear of criticism. 

IIRC, the phrase, PC, was coined in the US to shut down any discourses that came from the Left...it's a form of Newspeak really.

Curiously enough, the Right also have their own forms of political correctness.


----------



## Y_I_Otter (Aug 16, 2008)

"Political correctness", it seems to me, is the just preferred catch-all euphemism for terms like "respect", "compassion" and "kindness" for use by people who have no interest in cultivating those concepts in themselves.


----------



## Autonomous (Aug 16, 2008)

nino_savatte said:


> Curiously enough, the Right also have their own forms of political correctness.



Fuckin' eh. Any criticism of Israel and you're called a racist. You dare to point out the obvious wisdom of keeping religious fictions out of schools and you're accused of 'religious intolerance'. But if you dare to call them on _their_ views you're a PC fascist!


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 17, 2008)

Autonomous said:


> Fuckin' eh. Any criticism of Israel and you're called a racist. You dare to point out the obvious wisdom of keeping religious fictions out of schools and you're accused of 'religious intolerance'. But if you dare to call them on _their_ views you're a PC fascist!



Yep.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 17, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> of course not. But....well stuart lee puts it more succinctly than I can




He's now incorporating that into a 9 min bit in his stand up routine. It even includes Littlejohn bashing at the end. It's as if it were written for U75:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=K21e7po1Sro


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 17, 2008)

Here's a selection of self-described anti-PC articles and sites. Can anyone see the common thread running through them?

This Daily Mail article about Kirklees Council
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-413775/Now-council-bans-use-political-correctness-work.html

Here is an example of how the anti-PCers apply their arguments: you're either with us or against us.
http://politicalcorrectness.com/home.html

Here is the Tory-led Anti-PC Campaign. Check out some of the comments that have been made by "visitors" to the site. 
http://www.capc.co.uk/

Meanwhile The Anti-Political Correctness Society is quite proud to have an image of a Gollywog on its homepage. Presumably they're also behind a campaign to rehabilitate sitcoms like _Love Thy Neighbour _and _Curry and Chips._
http://www.antipc.co.uk/


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 17, 2008)

> Originally Posted by Gmarthews
> _I'm currently reading a book on this subject called "The Retreat of Reason: Political Correctness and the Corruption of Public Debate in Modern Britain" (see here), it's about how political correctness and an almost luddite anti-logic/rationality attitude is dumbing down our society_.



Of course what you haven't explained is that this book is written by Anthony Browne (not to be confused with the author of children's books), who is the director of the Tory think tank Policy Exchange (David Cameron and his chums, Gove and Osborne are/were also members).

Oddly enough, someone like Browne would never admit to having his own version of PC - as the Right do but deny.

E2A: Policy Exchange recently published a pamphlet in which they said that Northerners should abandon the north and head south. That doesn't strike me as being realistic and it underscores the position of deep-seated anti-intellectualism that runs through much of Tory thinking.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 17, 2008)

I accept that it is difficult for anyone to be objective as they are usually distracted by their existing beliefs. So often people start with an agenda, and then selectively choose the evidence they present.

I knew this when I started to read the Browne book I described above.

I recognised that it was controversial, but I would still recommend it as a read because it makes some very good points. Sure maybe he goes a bit too far in some areas. As has been mentioned here being PC has brought tolerance into our society, and that has been a welcome relief to those who were suffering.

Still the same balance must be applied to both sides, and each case needs to be addressed on its own merits. Sometimes both sides react a bit too quickly where a bit of thought, study and change should have been considered first.

I am particularly concerned that the PC line should be marked as exempt from criticism, and that if one fails to toe the PC line you get ad hominem insults as I have had even here.

This is supposed to be a forum to explore a variety of issues, and it works well if everyone accepts that we are here to do this, rather than to lecture and pass judgment.


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 17, 2008)

Gmarthews said:


> I accept that it is difficult for anyone to be objective as they are usually distracted by their existing beliefs. So often people start with an agenda, and then selectively choose the evidence they present.
> 
> I knew this when I started to read the Browne book I described above.
> 
> ...



Sorry, but what's your point caller?

Furthermore, where are these "ad hominem insults" that you refer to?

Browne's book isn't "controversial", it's reactionary and anti-intellectual. Perhaps you've not noticed the number of groups who all claim to be "anti-PC"? You seem a little reticent on the matter. Did you know anything about Browne or Policy Exchange before you read the book?

What do you think Political Correctness is? Do you regard it as acceptable to treat someone differently because of their ethnicity or gender?

Also, aren't you the one who got a hard on for Ayn Rand?


----------



## Pigeon (Aug 17, 2008)

Gmarthews said:


> I have long been in favour of the legalisation of this industry to bring more power to the workers and to enable better control of disease. (See this thread)



Legalise whatever you like. Won't change the fact that there are women with no means of supporting themselves whatsoever- no right to work, no access to benefits etc- who are selling sex to survive. And, as a result of their marginal situations, have limited ability to assert that their "customers" use condoms or practice safe sex.


----------



## Pigeon (Aug 17, 2008)

fela fan said:


> I read that the government have banned the use of 'obese' in reports by teachers of children at school. They have to say instead 'over-weight'.



Jesus god, no! You mean you've "read" that the PC fascists are even clamping down on the rights of teachers to make irrelevant personal comments about their pupils' appearance?

Truly, this is the straw that broke the camel's back!


----------



## Pigeon (Aug 17, 2008)

Gmarthews said:


> As has been mentioned here being PC has brought tolerance into our society, and that has been a welcome relief to those who were suffering.



Nothing to do with political and social _struggle _then. Oh well.


----------



## fela fan (Aug 17, 2008)

Pigeon said:


> Jesus god, no! You mean you've "read" that the PC fascists are even clamping down on the rights of teachers to make irrelevant personal comments about their pupils' appearance?
> 
> Truly, this is the straw that broke the camel's back!



Jesus god yes. And i don't think that calling such comments as 'irrelevant' actually sums up the context correctly.

Political correctness is a method of banning language, apparently based on not affecting people's apparent sensitivities.

The problem with it is that the thinking behind such racist sexist comments does not disappear. So you get a shutdown of language attempted by the PC people, whoever they may be and they're often those with power, yet the desired outcome gets worse if anything.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 17, 2008)

Oh joy! Fela and matthews having a conversation about _pc gone mad_. My prayers have come true.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 17, 2008)

Jeff Robinson said:


> He's now incorporating that into a 9 min bit in his stand up routine. It even includes Littlejohn bashing at the end. It's as if it were written for U75:
> 
> http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=K21e7po1Sro



'If political correctness has achieved one thing, it's forced the tories to cloak thier inherent racism with more creative language'  lmfao


----------



## fela fan (Aug 17, 2008)

butchersapron said:


> Oh joy! Fela and matthews having a conversation about _pc gone mad_. My prayers have come true.



It's absolutely amazing that some stranger half way across the world can have so much influence on your life  butchers.

Are you having a problem with life at the minute?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 17, 2008)

Not now i'm not. Let the feast of well informed critical debate between you two clowns begin.


----------



## Pigeon (Aug 17, 2008)

fela fan said:


> Jesus god yes. And i don't think that calling such comments as 'irrelevant' actually sums up the context correctly.



No? So enlighten me; when precisely did a child's physical appearance become a legitimate focus for a teacher's attention?




			
				fela fan said:
			
		

> the PC people, whoever they may be


----------



## Pigeon (Aug 17, 2008)

fela fan said:


> So you get a shutdown of language attempted by the PC people, whoever they may be and they're often those with power, yet the desired outcome gets worse if anything.



Where _is_ this attempted shutdown of language then? You're suggesting that racist and sexist discourse in mainstream culture is "banned" by "the PC people" are you? Seriously?


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 17, 2008)

fela fan said:


> Jesus god yes. And i don't think that calling such comments as 'irrelevant' actually sums up the context correctly.
> 
> Political correctness is a method of banning language, apparently based on not affecting people's apparent sensitivities.
> 
> The problem with it is that the thinking behind such racist sexist comments does not disappear. So you get a shutdown of language attempted by the PC people, whoever they may be and they're often those with power, yet the desired outcome gets worse if anything.



Truth be told: the phrase "PC gone mad" is a discourse-killer as well as a concealer of discourses.


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 17, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> 'If political correctness has achieved one thing, it's forced the tories to cloak thier inherent racism with more creative language'  lmfao



Innit?


----------



## fela fan (Aug 17, 2008)

nino_savatte said:


> Truth be told: the phrase "PC gone mad" is a discourse-killer as well as a concealer of discourses.



Totally agreed mate. I still think orwell wrote the best stuff i've read about political language and how it shuts down thinking, both in the speaker and listener.

PC to me is political language.


----------



## fela fan (Aug 17, 2008)

Pigeon said:


> Where _is_ this attempted shutdown of language then? You're suggesting that racist and sexist discourse in mainstream culture is "banned" by "the PC people" are you? Seriously?



No, i'm not suggesting that.

As for the attempted shutdown of language you talk of, it's going on all over the place, and if you can't see it, then there's fuck all i can do to point you in the right direction.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 17, 2008)

There must be something?


----------



## fela fan (Aug 17, 2008)

Pigeon said:


> No? So enlighten me; when precisely did a child's physical appearance become a legitimate focus for a teacher's attention?



I dunno mate. But that was the context of the story i read on bbc website news. Reports are made on all children with reference to their general health. Fat kids that could rightly be called obese were not allowed to be called that, and instead had to be called 'overweight'.

The reports were part of the service of all schools i guess.


----------



## fela fan (Aug 17, 2008)

butchersapron said:


> There must be something?



No, nothing...


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 17, 2008)

fela fan said:


> I dunno mate. But that was the context of the story i read on bbc website news. Reports are made on all children with reference to their general health. Fat kids that could rightly be called obese were not allowed to be called that, and instead had to be called 'overweight'.
> 
> The reports were part of the service of all schools i guess.




I think as 'obese' is a clinical word and teachers aren't doctors and therefor not qualified to use the word wrt overwieght kids.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 17, 2008)

Nothing at all to demonstrate your thesis. Nothing at all to support it? No evidentiary basis. No examples. Nothing. nada zip? 

Convincing i'm sure you will agree.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 17, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> I think as 'obese' is a clinical word and teachers aren't doctors and therefor not qualified to use the word wrt overwieght kids.


The actual story rather than the fela version appears to have been that the DoH decided not to use the word "obese" as research had indicated that it was more likely to make parents think "my child's not obese! how dare they!" and alienate them over saying "very overweight", thus reducing the effectiveness of sending letters with health reports in the first place.



> He said: "Research shows that most parents of overweight or obese children think that their child is a healthy weight.
> 
> "This move isn't about pointing the finger and telling parents that their children are overweight, instead it is about equipping parents with the information they need to help their children live healthier lives."


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7541279.stm

The language used is actually very important to consider with this sort of thing. Oh, and the connection with schools is that the data is gathered at school - the letters are sent out by PCTs, I don't believe the schools ever get the results at all.


----------



## butterfly child (Aug 17, 2008)

butchersapron said:


> Not now i'm not. Let the feast of well informed critical debate between you two clowns begin.





Actually, the thought of it depresses me.

But I have run out of smileys.


----------



## butterfly child (Aug 17, 2008)

butchersapron said:


> Nothing at all to demonstrate your thesis. Nothing at all to support it? No evidentiary basis. No examples. Nothing. nada zip?
> 
> Convincing i'm sure you will agree.



I am actually crying with laughter now


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 17, 2008)

butterfly child said:


> I am actually crying with laughter now



Somebody's shut down fela's language, that's the trouble!

*shakes fist at PC police*


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 17, 2008)

"PC commissars" is my absolute favourite rightwing fantasy. I just love the idea of a PC Commissar dispatching a platoon of armed Bolsheviki to shut down a bakery for the counterrevolutionary crime of selling gingerbread _men_!


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 17, 2008)

I read the other day that the cheka banned piggy banks so that the muslims wouldn't be offended. You couldn't make it up!


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 17, 2008)

The Mensheviks had to go on that basis of course. I believe there was some debate as to whether they could be allowed to change their name to Personsheviks.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 17, 2008)

FridgeMagnet said:


> The Mensheviks had to go on that basis of course. I believe there was some debate as to whether they could be allowed to change their name to Personsheviks.



 It's all starting to add up...


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 17, 2008)

Here me out people!!! Apparently Gordon Clown has banned Britain because it offends the Irish!? Thi ssounds crazy but it is sadly probably true!


----------



## fela fan (Aug 18, 2008)

FridgeMagnet said:


> The actual story rather than the fela version appears to have been that the DoH decided not to use the word "obese" as research had indicated that it was more likely to make parents think "my child's not obese! how dare they!" and alienate them over saying "very overweight", thus reducing the effectiveness of sending letters with health reports in the first place.
> 
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7541279.stm



Actually fridgemagnet it wasn't my version at all, and all you've done is supply the bbc's version. I distinctly recall the version i read saying they didn't want to upset the parents using the word 'obese'.


----------



## fela fan (Aug 18, 2008)

butchersapron said:


> Nothing at all to demonstrate your thesis. Nothing at all to support it? No evidentiary basis. No examples. Nothing. nada zip?
> 
> Convincing i'm sure you will agree.



Thesis? You what? This thread has no thesis in it, just look at the thread title. It's a debating forum, not a bloody degree assignment.

You frequently make the mistake thinking that i'm here to convince others. Maybe that's your basis for contributing to urban, but it's not mine.


----------



## fela fan (Aug 18, 2008)

butterfly child said:


> I am actually crying with laughter now



Well in that case i think it fair to declare you're leading a rather sad life at the minute then.


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 18, 2008)

Jeff Robinson said:


> "PC commissars" is my absolute favourite rightwing fantasy. I just love the idea of a PC Commissar dispatching a platoon of armed Bolsheviki to shut down a bakery for the counterrevolutionary crime of selling gingerbread _men_!


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 18, 2008)

fela fan said:


> You frequently make the mistake thinking that i'm here to convince others.



Ah, so the poorly constructed arguments are a deliberate strategy in your game plan then? 

Publish this if you dare! A wise man once said that Gordon Clown, Nu Liar Bore and the PC loon brigade have banned genocide because it offends ethnics and queers! Send them to Iraq - it's the only sensible choice?!


----------



## Pigeon (Aug 18, 2008)

fela fan said:


> there's fuck all i can do to point you in the right direction.



Would that be because the PC people have robbed you of the necessary tools of communication?

Bastards.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 18, 2008)

I read the other day that I can't even say or do things without there being consequences of varying degrees for saying or doing those things. Apparently judgement can be now be passed on judgmental statements or actions! The invisible hand of the PC Politburo is strangling my speech - AND YOURS! You couldn't make it up, you couldn't make it up.


----------



## Pigeon (Aug 19, 2008)

Jeff Robinson said:


> You couldn't make it up, you couldn't make it up.



Oh, I dunno...


----------



## Gmart (Aug 20, 2008)

Another example of this is the Michael Moore book "Stupid White Men" which is obviously racist.

No doubt a title of "Stupid Black Men" would have been unacceptable.

And this is the crux. This implication is that if one group is in power, then they can be discriminated against, but if they have suffered even a little bit, then any such discrimination is illegal and justifies the kind of ad hominem attacks I got earlier.


----------



## Pigeon (Aug 20, 2008)

Gmarthews said:


> No doubt a title of "Stupid Black Men" would have been unacceptable.



Yes, that's right. And a routine by a black comedian- say Chris Rock- about how much he hates, say, "stupid niggaz", would be entirely unthinkable.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 20, 2008)

Gmarthews said:


> Another example of this is the Michael Moore book "Stupid White Men" which is obviously racist.
> 
> No doubt a title of "Stupid Black Men" would have been unacceptable.
> 
> And this is the crux. This implication is that if one group is in power, then they can be discriminated against, but if they have suffered even a little bit, then any such discrimination is illegal and justifies the kind of ad hominem attacks I got earlier.




The dominant power group is unfortunately taken as 'fair game' for verbal potshots but as top dog rarely if at all suffers other types of dicriminatory behaviour like you know, unequal pay increased attention from police etc etc


----------



## Gmart (Aug 20, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> The dominant power group is unfortunately taken as 'fair game' for verbal potshots but as top dog rarely if at all suffers other types of discriminatory behaviour like you know, unequal pay increased attention from police etc etc



So you can only suffer from discrimination if you are not part of a certain group of people?

The dominant power group itself is being discriminated against because _some _of them have power. Just because I am white and male doesn't mean that I am richer than you if we meet in the pub. There are plenty of other people meeting that criteria, and they don't deserve to be shat on just for being part of that group, (something which was not their own fault).

And talking about things which were not their fault, i thought that not judging people because of the colour of their skin was where the PC world started?


----------



## El Jefe (Aug 20, 2008)

Gmarthews said:


> So you can only suffer from discrimination if you are not part of a certain group of people?
> 
> The dominant power group itself is being discriminated against because _some _of them have power. Just because I am white and male doesn't mean that I am richer than you if we meet in the pub. There are plenty of other people meeting that criteria, and they don't deserve to be shat on just for being part of that group, (something which was not their own fault).
> 
> And talking about things which were not their fault, i thought that not judging people because of the colour of their skin was where the PC world started?




Are you posting this shit for a bet? Or some ragweek Sponsored Moron event?


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 20, 2008)

> And talking about things which were not their fault, i thought that not judging people because of the colour of their skin was where the PC world started?



No and maybe you should do some reading on Reagan-era USA...that's where the whole "PC gone mad" bollocks started (but you seem to have missed that).


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 20, 2008)

And why don't we have a White History Month, eh?


----------



## Gmart (Aug 20, 2008)

FridgeMagnet said:


> And why don't we have a White History Month, eh?



Are you saying that it is ok to have a black history month, presumably celebrating that history, meanwhile it is NOT ok to have a white history month? I mean are white kids not allowed to celebrate their history in class, while the black kids are? How fair is that?

I would suggest that we have _*neither *_and that it is up to the _family _to teach such things. Both histories will come up in the syllabus anyway to a certain degree, so I don't see the problem.

If someone wants to explore minor subjects outside the curriculum, then surely that would be fine, but why impose such a distinct division in society by having an entire month called black history month? 

I don't see what the problem is! I am arguing for no discrimination...


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 20, 2008)

Gmarthews said:


> Are you saying that it is ok to have a black history month, presumably celebrating that history, meanwhile it is NOT ok to have a white history month? I mean are white kids not allowed to celebrate their history in class, while the black kids are? How fair is that?
> 
> I would suggest that we have _*neither *_and that it is up to the _family _to teach such things. Both histories will come up in the syllabus anyway to a certain degree, so I don't see the problem.
> 
> ...



You clearly haven't thought this through - have you?


----------



## Gmart (Aug 20, 2008)

nino_savatte said:


> You clearly haven't thought this through - have you?



And I'm clearly not going to get an answer from you as usual...

I have thought it through very well thankyou and have come to the conclusion that being politically *aware *is a good thing, but that it is often simplistic and does not count for *all *cases. And that sometimes it pays to think before just trotting out the same old arguments.


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 20, 2008)

Gmarthews said:


> And I'm clearly not going to get an answer from you as usual...
> 
> I have thought it through very well thankyou and have come to the conclusion that being politically *aware *is a good thing, but that it is often simplistic and does not count for *all *cases. And that sometimes it pays to think before just trotting out the same old arguments.



Er, what are you talking about? What "answer"? You haven't asked me a question, dimwit.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 20, 2008)

Okay, I wasn't expecting him to actually _agree_.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 20, 2008)

nino_savatte said:


> "PC gone mad" bollocks started



Fair enough, so why did you say the above. Do you believe that it is impossible to take being PC too far?


----------



## El Jefe (Aug 20, 2008)

Gmarthews said:


> Are you saying that it is ok to have a black history month, presumably celebrating that history, meanwhile it is NOT ok to have a white history month? I mean are white kids not allowed to celebrate their history in class, while the black kids are? How fair is that?
> 
> I would suggest that we have _*neither *_and that it is up to the _family _to teach such things. Both histories will come up in the syllabus anyway to a certain degree, so I don't see the problem.
> 
> ...



facefuckingpalm


----------



## Gmart (Aug 20, 2008)

El Jefe said:


> facefuckingpalm



FFS, this is not rocket science. It should be pretty obvious that being PC can be taken too far, because it doesn't give us all the answers. I would suggest being politically aware as much as possible, but perfection will not be achieved.

I appreciate the argument for positive discrimination, but it will often be at the expense of those who are disadvantaged, but who don't meet the correct racial criteria.

The allocation of resources has to be managed very carefully as we only have a finite amount.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 20, 2008)

No, it isn't rocket science. It really isn't. It's really, really easy.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 20, 2008)

FridgeMagnet said:


> No, it isn't rocket science. It really isn't. It's really, really easy.



It's amazing you lot seem so keen to go on about it being easy, yet refuse to actually state it!

If it were so easy, it would have taken you less time just to state it.

The logical conclusion is that you don't understand it at all, and that you are hoping just to palm me off with vague bullshit.

OR you're just pulling my leg and you just don't know

Either way I'm bored now so if you have something interesting to say then please feel free otherwise I'll go back to the ME forum where Rach talks rubbish all the time, but at least he actually bothers to get involved...


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 21, 2008)

You see, the thing is, anyone who doesn't understand the whole "white history month" thing is operating from one or more of the following positions:

1. hasn't thought about it;
2. is just thick.

It is _so fucking easy_. This is 2+2 stuff. Even blatant racists usually _understand_ it, they just argue that, say, actually whites did everything worth caring about anyway.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 21, 2008)

FridgeMagnet said:


> You see, the thing is, anyone who doesn't understand the whole "white history month" thing is operating from one or more of the following positions:
> 
> 1. hasn't thought about it;
> 2. is just thick.
> ...



Dealt with this in #78.

And I might add that you should have the option 3 where I have thought about it but come to a different conclusion to yourself ie. I don't think we should have either black or white history month as I stated in #78.


----------



## El Jefe (Aug 21, 2008)

Gmarthews said:


> The allocation of resources has to be managed very carefully as we only have a finite amount.



Can I recommend therefore that you throw yourself down a steep flight of stairs, thus freeing up resources for someone a little more evolved?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 21, 2008)

No, you didn't. You clearly don't understand the issue at all, or at least, if you do, you have cunningly decided not to display any indication in the slightest of understanding it. 2+2 is uh uh uh I already said it was 5! OMG if you are so clever why don't you tell me what it SHOULD be only don't use long words like "4".


----------



## Gmart (Aug 21, 2008)

FridgeMagnet said:


> No, you didn't. You clearly don't understand the issue at all, or at least, if you do, you have cunningly decided not to display any indication in the slightest of understanding it. 2+2 is uh uh uh I already said it was 5! OMG if you are so clever why don't you tell me what it SHOULD be only don't use long words like "4".



I understand the issue fine as illustrated by my answers. If you have a problem with them then feel free to comment on what I actually said.

I suppose that Dotcommunist said it all by saying:



> The dominant power group is unfortunately taken as 'fair game' for verbal potshots



And I thought that this might lead to a discussion about how to mitigate this. Yet actually people don't care and though it is blatant discrimination they imply that actually because _*some*_ people in that group have it good, they decide to tar everyone with the same brush. Almost like saying that coz they're rich they deserve to get beat up.

But this is against the principles of PC which was invented to deal with people who judged people for being part of a group.

It's like letting some kid get bullied in the playground coz he's got a posh accent. It is seen as fair game by the kids often and by the rationale of this thread I can see that it is seen as fair game here too.


----------



## rachamim18 (Aug 21, 2008)

Political Correctness as a subject by itself is despicable. I cannot admit to having read the book although from the synopsis I see it is akin to a wealth of similarly themed articles and books. Fear of offending one or another demographic has stifled real discourse for far too long.

Dot is correct about the dominant group having "potshots" taken at it but as the dominant group it can well afford it. The minority groups are the ones that are ill equipped to absorb even facetious derison.

G speaks of "Stpupid White Men" by Moore and this is a perfect example. I can think of no other group that would be any more impervious to derison than they. No white of any gener is going to suffer because of the book and that is the real quesstion; Will said phrase, etc. more than offend, actually cause harm? In this case it could never happen as I see it.


----------



## William of Walworth (Aug 21, 2008)

Jeff Robinson said:
			
		

> "PC commissars" is my absolute favourite rightwing fantasy. I just love the idea of a PC Commissar dispatching a platoon of armed Bolsheviki to shut down a bakery for the counterrevolutionary crime of selling gingerbread men!





Jeff Robinson said:


> I read the other day that the cheka banned piggy banks so that the muslims wouldn't be offended. You couldn't make it up!






			
				Jeff Robinson said:
			
		

> Publish this if you dare! A wise man once said that Gordon Clown, Nu Liar Bore and the PC loon brigade have banned genocide because it offends ethnics and queers! Send them to Iraq - it's the only sensible choice?!






			
				Jeff Robinson said:
			
		

> I read the other day that I can't even say or do things without there being consequences of varying degrees for saying or doing those things. Apparently judgement can be now be passed on judgmental statements or actions! The invisible hand of the PC Politburo is strangling my speech - AND YOURS! You couldn't make it up, you couldn't make it up.




 

Classic!!!!


----------



## William of Walworth (Aug 21, 2008)

Very useful phrase, 'Political Correctness' 

The more people use the phrase seriously, and the more they complain about 'PC' 'going mad', ideally with increasingly red faced and frothfoaming indignance!!!1!!!1!!!!1, the better.

Because in using such phrases and non-pisstakingly at that, they provide a very handy ultra-short-cut Instanto-Guide to exactly how much of a backward, reactionary, moronical, braindead, cliche-recycling, Telegraphesque, Littlejohnesque, Clarksonesque  100% gold plated wanker they are  

It might take at least two or three minutes to be absolutely sure, otherwise ...


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 21, 2008)

Gmarthews said:


> I understand the issue fine as illustrated by my answers. If you have a problem with them then feel free to comment on what I actually said.
> 
> I suppose that Dotcommunist said it all by saying:
> 
> ...



And did you know that the m/c are getting priced out of public schools too?


----------



## fogbat (Aug 21, 2008)

FridgeMagnet said:


> The actual story rather than the fela version appears to have been that the DoH decided not to use the word "obese" as research had indicated that it was more likely to make parents think "my child's not obese! how dare they!" and alienate them over saying "very overweight", thus reducing the effectiveness of sending letters with health reports in the first place.
> 
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7541279.stm
> ...



The best bit is that the snorting, anguished howling made by halfwits believing the gutter press version often finish their complaint with "You couldn't make it up!!!"


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Aug 21, 2008)

Gmarthews said:


> One of the stories he uses is that the infection of AIDS is down to African Immigrants coming over here and being diagnosed with AIDS, thus adding to our infection stats. He recognises that this could be used by the BNP, but states that this fact should not distract us from the facts. If AIDS is really being spread by African Immigrants then surely this should be advertised and damn political correctness.
> 
> And I am with him on that. Being PC shouldn 't distract us from the facts, whatever the consequences.



I just want to return to this for a minute, because it pisses me off.

In the real world there are limited resources available for public health awareness campaigns. 

The objective of those concerned with AIDs/HIV is clear - to prevent the spread of the virus by increasing awareness. The most effective way of doing this is promote safe sex.

In my view racialising the issue is not helpful, as well as being distasteful. 

What is being suggested is that resources which are spent on promoting safe sex are diverted into advertising the fact that some african immigrants may be HIV+ or have AIDs.

What message does that send, and will it help promote public health? It confuses the issue by suggesting... what?

That people should not have casual sex with black men?

That you should use a condom, but don't worry too much about it unless you are fucking someone from Africa?

What would those posters look like?

How is this helpful? _Why _is it so important to advertise "whatever the consequences"?

What do we think the consequences might be?


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Aug 21, 2008)

Similarly it is worth mentioning that the QCA discourages Black History Month being taught in schools.

The teaching of black history is often confined to topics about slavery and post-war immigration or to Black History Month. The effect, if inadvertent, is to undervalue the overall contribution of black and minority ethnic people to Britain’s past and to ignore their cultural, scientific and many other achievements.
History: 2004/5 annual report on curriculum and assessment (QCA)​
It is, however, worth remembering where Black History Month came from. 

As someone who was at school from the mid 70s to mid 80s I can honestly say that I was not taught any history whatsoever which involved black people (and that includes my 'O' level).

As a response to this many black activists and community groups organised their own community based and self-funded Black History events. This gradually became more established with some local councils seeing the wisdom of funding black community groups at a time when society was unbelievably racist and black people were excluded from many areas of "British life".

These sort of initiatives coalesced around Black History Month, which continues in many areas to this day. Some events are funded by local govt, some are not.

In my view there is still a need for these events as many people like myself are still knocking around who were not taught black history at school.

The fact that upthread people are discussing not being mean to privileged white men suggests we also have some way to go until we reach the point where black people are not disadvantaged in any way. Perhaps at that point jettisoning Black History Month will be an option.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 21, 2008)

Fozzie Bear said:


> The objective of those concerned with AIDs/HIV is clear - to prevent the spread of the virus by increasing awareness. The most effective way of doing this is promote safe sex.



How do you know this? I don't, I am merely stating that according to the study below, African Immigrants have a significantly higher chance of having the virus then this should be communicated to the population as the most effective way of meeting our shared objective above.

I appreciate that the safe sex message of always wearing a condom is a good basic campaign, but this disease needs to be controlled. It is already a problem (for example) that the moralists insist that prostitution is illegal, thus encouraging the disease in that industry.



Fozzie Bear said:


> In my view racialising the issue is not helpful, as well as being distasteful.



Not helpful in the fight against racism? If it saves one life, then it would have been worth it.



Fozzie Bear said:


> What is being suggested is that resources which are spent on promoting safe sex are diverted into advertising the fact that some African immigrants may be HIV+ or have AIDs.
> What message does that send, and will it help promote public health? It confuses the issue by suggesting... what? [...] That people should not have casual sex with black men?



Or rather it satisfies the first duty of government, to inform the population of the risks they face; in this case that, as a group, African Immigrants have a higher percentage chance of having the virus.

Think of it as positive discrimination for the sake of saving lives.



Fozzie Bear said:


> How is this helpful? _Why _is it so important to advertise "whatever the consequences"?



You answered this yourself because we share the objective to prevent the spread of the virus by increasing awareness.



Fozzie Bear said:


> What do we think the consequences might be?



Any authoritarian would be sure to use public safety as an excuse to prevent the UK population from being informed of the risks they face. 

Feel free to peruse the study which started this:

In this article it states: 


> In the United Kingdom (UK) Africans and gay men are the two largest social groups affected by HIV. Over 90% of heterosexually acquired HIV infections diagnosed in the UK during 2004 were probably acquired in high prevalence countries of origin, mainly sub-Saharan Africa [1]. This trend is also being observed in Germany (60% of all heterosexual cases), Switzerland, Netherlands, Belgium and the Scandinavian countries [2,3].


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 21, 2008)

Uh, isn't it the case that this is the first time that link hs been mentioned in the thread? And more to the point it doesn't appear to back up your ridiculously formulated and circular claim in the OP that 



> the infection of AIDS is down to African Immigrants coming over here and being diagnosed with AIDS,



and that there is a politically correct consipracy to hide higher levels of infection amongst african men. On the contrary your link lists a whole series of public campiagns to raise awareness of this fact. It doesn't mention any politically correct campaign or naything even approaching your OP paranoia, in fact you've provided nothing whatsoever to support your argument as far as i can see.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 21, 2008)

Sorry Butcher I have you on ignore, one of only two posters with such a dubious honour!!


----------



## El Jefe (Aug 21, 2008)

butchersapron said:


> Uh, isn't it the case that this is the first time that link hs been mentioned in the thread? And more to the point it doesn't appear to back up your ridiculously formulated and circular claim in the OP that
> 
> 
> 
> ...



for gmarthews benefit


----------



## Gmart (Aug 21, 2008)

El Jefe said:


> for gmarthews benefit



Cheers 

The question is whether we should inform the population of such a risk. If the report is right in suggesting that African immigrants have an infection rate of 90%, then would you tell a friend this if they were thinking of going out with one? And if they contracted the disease after your decision not to do so on the basis that it would be "unhelpful" in the fight against racism, how would that make you feel?


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Aug 21, 2008)

Gmarthews said:


> How do you know this? I don't, I am merely stating that according to the study below, African Immigrants have a significantly higher chance of having the virus then this should be communicated to the population as the most effective way of meeting our shared objective above.



How do I know this? What are you after, a CV?

If you know of a more effective way of promoting public health, then please let me know - I'm all ears. 

Perhaps an alternative approach would be to put up big posters of African men with the word "unclean" on them in big block caps?



Gmarthews said:


> I appreciate that the safe sex message of always wearing a condom is a good basic campaign, but this disease needs to be controlled. It is already a problem (for example) that the moralists insist that prostitution is illegal, thus encouraging the disease in that industry.



And how do you propose to control it?

Let me put a scenario to you... feel free to come up with alternatives!

We could:

a) Put all african immigrants in camps and force them to be tested?
b) Divert existing resources which promote safe sex into a special campaign devoted entirely to promoting african men as harbingers of disease?



Gmarthews said:


> Not helpful in the fight against racism? If it saves one life, then it would have been worth it.



Racism is not the issue here. Needlessly complicating the message is the issue. If you go down that route you end up with several messages rather than one. 

Reinforcing safe sex at every opporunity is my approach. 

Yours seems to be producing a list of types of people who may (or may not!) have the virus. Perhaps we could find that stats on people in Uganda vs people in Ethiopia and have leaflets saying:

Person A is from country X
Person B is from country Y

A is 8% more likely to be HIV+ than B. 

So if you are thinking of getting it on with someone tonight, please bear this in mind!​



Gmarthews said:


> Or rather it satisfies the first duty of government, to inform the population of the risks they face; in this case that, as a group, African Immigrants have a higher percentage chance of having the virus.
> 
> Think of it as positive discrimination for the sake of saving lives.



I don't agree that is the first duty of government or that your approach will save lives, quite the reverse in fact.



Gmarthews said:


> You answered this yourself because we share the objective to prevent the spread of the virus by increasing awareness.



Except, for you, the issue of race seems to trump all?




Gmarthews said:


> Any authoritarian would be sure to use public safety as an excuse to prevent the UK population from being informed of the risks they face.



All sorts of public health legislation is "authoritarian", is it not? For example the smoking ban?



Gmarthews said:


> Feel free to peruse the study which started this:
> 
> In this article it states:



I've read it, thanks.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 21, 2008)

Gmarthews said:


> If the report is right in suggesting that African immigrants have an infection rate of 90%



 It says absolutely nothing like that.

I think we should get fela in on this thread again, and it would probably benefit from having Dravinian here too.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 21, 2008)

FridgeMagnet said:


> It says absolutely nothing like that.



You must have missed the first sentence of the quote, here it is again for your benefit 



> In the United Kingdom (UK) Africans and gay men are the two largest social groups affected by HIV. Over 90% of heterosexually acquired HIV infections diagnosed in the UK during 2004 were probably acquired in high prevalence countries of origin, mainly sub-Saharan Africa [1].


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 21, 2008)

Brilliant!


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 21, 2008)

Have a think about that the difference between what that bit you quoted means, and what the bit I quoted that you said means.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 21, 2008)

> In the United Kingdom (UK) Africans and gay men are the two largest social groups affected by HIV. Over 90% of heterosexually acquired HIV infections diagnosed in the UK during 2004 were probably acquired in high prevalence countries of origin, mainly sub-Saharan Africa [1].



In other words, African immigrants are scarcely responsible for the spread of HIV in the UK at all. The virus was acquired *in the country of origin*.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 21, 2008)

Quite aside from GM's inability to understand his own quote, this statistic  doesn't tell us anything we would not expect to hear. It really is a statement of the bleeding obvious.

In fact the only thing of note in it, for me, is the relatively tiny number of people acquiring HIV heterosexually in the UK.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 21, 2008)

littlebabyjesus said:


> In other words, African immigrants are scarcely responsible for the spread of HIV in the UK at all. The virus was acquired *in the country of origin*.



Certainly, though that wasn't quite the particular point I was trying to make there.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 21, 2008)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Certainly, but that wasn't quite the particular point I was trying to make there.


Yeah, I know. I took this point as a given. GMarthews will realise his mistake at some point.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 21, 2008)

Fozzie Bear said:


> If you know of a more effective way of promoting public health, then please let me know - I'm all ears.


I have made my case.



Fozzie Bear said:


> Perhaps an alternative approach would be to put up big posters of African men with the word "unclean" on them in big block caps?



Slippery slope fallacies are just that.



Fozzie Bear said:


> Let me put a scenario to you... feel free to come up with alternatives!



How about a document which states the infection rates of the major groups in our society.



Fozzie Bear said:


> Racism is not the issue here. Needlessly complicating the message is the issue. If you go down that route you end up with several messages rather than one.
> 
> Reinforcing safe sex at every opportunity is my approach.



It is a good basic campaign.



Fozzie Bear said:


> I don't agree that is the first duty of government or that your approach will save lives, quite the reverse in fact.



Feel free to expand on this. What would your first duty of a government be?



Fozzie Bear said:


> Except, for you, the issue of race seems to trump all?



I am merely interested in properly informing the population of the risks in our society. Such a high percentage is remarkable. And if it saves lives it would be worth it; so no! it is *saving lives* which trumps all.

Authoritarianism

I tend to be against this without an individual victim, but the world is a complex place, with many different issues to consider. At the moment there is a progressive movement to eliminate risk which is probably a bit idealistic, still probably another issue...

How about another quote, this time from the Lancet:



> Migrants from countries with a high prevalence of HIV/AIDS, notably sub-Saharan Africa, bear a disproportionate and increasing share of HIV throughout western Europe and, in most countries, account for the majority of heterosexually acquired HIV infections diagnosed in recent years.



Seems quite straightforward that we should watch this issue closely.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 21, 2008)

*penny drops*

Whoops!

That makes a difference, in that it means that most of the growth in infection rates are down to already infected people coming here and being diagnosed here.

Apologies for the misrepresentation


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Aug 21, 2008)

Gmarthews said:


> Being PC shouldn 't distract us from the facts, whatever the consequences.



You are getting closer to the facts, but still have a way to go. Please reread what Fridgemagnet is saying as well.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Aug 21, 2008)

Gmarthews said:


> How about a document which states the infection rates of the major groups in our society.



You mean like a league table? So people can make an informed choice about who they have sex with and warn their friends if they happen to be attracted to someone from Africa?

It's an innovative idea, but to my mind you always run the risk of some absolutely retarded anti-pc merchant completely misinterpreting the stats. 

So I prefer the simple approach.


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 21, 2008)

Gmarthews said:


> Fair enough, so why did you say the above. Do you believe that it is impossible to take being PC too far?



Are you being deliberately obtuse?


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 21, 2008)

rachamim18 said:


> Political Correctness as a subject by itself is despicable. I cannot admit to having read the book although from the synopsis I see it is akin to a wealth of similarly themed articles and books. Fear of offending one or another demographic has stifled real discourse for far too long.
> 
> * Dot is correct about the dominant group having "potshots" taken at it but as the dominant group it can well afford it.* The minority groups are the ones that are ill equipped to absorb even facetious derison.
> 
> G speaks of "Stpupid White Men" by Moore and this is a perfect example. I can think of no other group that would be any more impervious to derison than they. No white of any gener is going to suffer because of the book and that is the real quesstion; Will said phrase, etc. more than offend, actually cause harm? In this case it could never happen as I see it.




I nearly added a picture of the worlds smallest violin next to my comment, but I hadn't expected it to be taken quite so seriously.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 21, 2008)

Just because i am white and male doesn't give everyone the right to take potshots at me.

The same principle applies to any simplistic grouping.

It's best to deal with the world as individuals.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 21, 2008)

Gmarthews said:


> Just because i am white and male doesn't give everyone the right to take potshots at me.
> 
> The same principle applies to any simplistic grouping.
> 
> It's best to deal with the world as individuals.



Yes it is best to do so. But thats not how it happens or has ever happened people have been dealt with within the societally normal prescripts, they still are. A demand for total parity must accept the massive lack of parity within our society. Not 'let's treat everyone the same' but 'let's acknowledge that inequality thrives and do something'


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Aug 22, 2008)

Gmarthews said:


> Just because i am white and male doesn't give everyone the right to take potshots at me.



Indeed. 

There are other reasons why people are taking potshots at you.


----------



## Dravinian (Aug 22, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> of course not. But....well stuart lee puts it more succinctly than I can




Its funny only if you read the review by Julian Petley because he goes to great lengths to explain how he creates a strawman argument and then knocks it down.

Then you listen to Stuart Lee do just that.  In case you needed a real life example.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 22, 2008)

Dravinian said:


> Its funny only if you read the review by Julian Petley because he goes to great lengths to explain how he creates a strawman argument and then knocks it down.
> 
> Then you listen to Stuart Lee do just that.  In case you needed a real life example.



Or, If ya want someone who can articulate the view with humor and style. Sadly the argument that Stu has mocked in his extended comedy version of this anti PC demolisher goes unheard.


----------



## fela fan (Aug 22, 2008)

FridgeMagnet said:


> It says absolutely nothing like that.
> 
> I think we should get fela in on this thread again, and it would probably benefit from having Dravinian here too.



Well, i've just returned fridge, so how can i oblige? I do hope you're not making lots of misinterpretations about me...


----------



## fela fan (Aug 22, 2008)

Gmarthews said:


> *penny drops*
> 
> Whoops!
> 
> ...



Interestingly this is not the reply of a politically correct person.

Politically correct people tend to be poorer listeners due to red flag words setting their emotions off, thereby not hearing the subsequent text.

I also like the term 'politically correct'. Because political people already know everything, they have strong views on what should or should not be, and because of this are rarely, or can rarely be, wrong.

Being correct in politics frequently means something different to the reality of the situation. And political correctness is all about trying to change people's usage of language, but fails on the whole because it fails to address the underlying issue: attitudes that form thinking.

Ok, we can stop certain language being uttered, but does it stop the thinking? And if the language is suppressed, how does that influence the thinker and how does it impact on their thinking?


----------



## fela fan (Aug 22, 2008)

Politically correct people impose themselves on others, deciding what is or is not safe for other people's consumption.

Politically correct people have invested in themselves a higher sense of morality and altruism.

Far more important than trying to change language use is trying to change thinking and attitudes. Both of which need not be realised in language, but which can nevertheless have negative consequences for society.

If people realise the futility of being racist or being mysoginist, for example, and start to see all people as just being people, then they won't use language that can offend others. Such language will drop by its own accord since there will be no thinking that requires it to be uttered.

But, in the political world, people try to force change on others, hence political correctness as a tool to manipulate language usage in other people (which runs counter to freedom of speech of course). Hence we get so much antagonism in day to day social relations.

More fruitful is to have more debates about, and more exploration of, relevant topics - both in media, and amongst social groups of people.


----------



## tarannau (Aug 22, 2008)

Fuck me, the triumvirate of ignorant knobbers is complete. The Fridge Magnet prophecy has come true.

Logic and reason is clearly beyond them, but at the moment basic comprehension of the the written word seems to elude Fela. He's off on his Orwellian language hobbyhorse yet again, despite the clear flaws in the OP and subsequent posts. 

Far from PC sensitivities constraining debate, here's a grand example of some grandstanding turnip ranting on irrelevantly to attack supposed political correctness, not noticing that the OP was based on a ludicrous, misguided take on reality in the first place.


----------



## fela fan (Aug 22, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> Not 'let's treat everyone the same' but 'let's acknowledge that inequality thrives and do something'



yeah, and how are you going to do this something? Are you going to force change on others, ie the political route, or are we going to create conditions and the right climate where people make those changes by their own volition and free will?

It's politics that creates all these divisions and disrespect between different groups of people, be it race colour creed or gender. This is why political correctness is doomed to failure.

While politics is the dominant default of society, then we will always have these inequalities and lack of respect between different members of the human race. Solutions need to be found outside of this ugly divisive mechanism.

[However i do recognise the need for language to help create the positive conditions i speak of.]


----------



## fela fan (Aug 22, 2008)

tarannau said:


> Fuck me...
> 
> ...not noticing that the OP was based on a ludicrous, misguided take on reality in the first place.



A thread is not decided solely upon the OP. The OP holds no special prerogative on the content of the subsequent thread. 

The title is very clear. I am contributing to the thread based on the title and in reaction originally to other posters.

My posts offer you no insight at all as to how or whether i noticed the OP.

I hope you have a better day than you appear to have started it.


----------



## tarannau (Aug 22, 2008)

fela fan said:


> A thread is not decided solely upon the OP. The OP holds no special prerogative on the content of the subsequent thread.
> 
> The title is very clear. I am contributing to the thread based on the title and in reaction originally to other posters.
> 
> ...



Jesus, so you came up with that pompous pish as an deliberate irrelevance then, deliberately showing up your ignorance and hair trigger reaction to the very mention of political corrrectness. A cunning feat of self-exposure.

You don't really understand how the internet and modern life work, do you Fela? Fancy trying to make your words in some way relevant to the preceding posts eh. What a thought.

Having a lovely day myself. Cup of tea, day off, mates round later. You seem a little tense and shrill to me, flushed with a need to bibble nonsensical tosh for some reason. Hob nob?


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 22, 2008)

Gmarthews said:


> Just because i am white and male doesn't give everyone the right to take potshots at me.
> 
> The same principle applies to any simplistic grouping.
> 
> It's best to deal with the world as individuals.



Pitoyable.


----------



## fogbat (Aug 22, 2008)

fela fan said:


> Politically correct people impose themselves on others, deciding what is or is not safe for other people's consumption.
> 
> Politically correct people have invested in themselves a higher sense of morality and altruism.
> 
> ...




What I really hate is the way politically correct people all make enormous generalisations


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 22, 2008)

I feel like change is being forced on me. I'm forced to turn my smile upside down and facepalm


----------



## William of Walworth (Aug 27, 2008)

*Just an example of a favourite myth annually trotted out byu 'PC Gone Mad' lunatics*

Gmarthews and other 'PC gone too far ' obsessives, and anyone else : are you *in any way* under the impression that Christmas is under threat in the UK, do you think that in some places, overt celebration of Christmas gets 'banned' or discouraged?

This article is for you : The Phoney War on Christmas




			
				Oliver Burkemann said:
			
		

> Luton council, we are told, has banned people from celebrating Christmas. Birmingham has renamed the season Winterval. A Reading man has been told to take his decorations down. There's only one problem with the 'PC campaign' against Christmas - it's pure nonsense



Please read the full article. It was the subject of a fine Urban thread around Christmas 2006, but I don't apologise for resurrecting the link, because that article systematically drives a coach an horses through one of the most cherished beliefs of many 'PC' obsessives.

If these 'Now Christmas is banned' stories are so nonsensical (and you'd be hard pushed to argue that they're anything other than hysterical tabloid concoctions and lies, after reading Burkemann's demolition of them) then what about so many OTHER 'PC gone mad' standards in the mainstream media?

Apply the same proper degree of media scepticism to these stories, with a healthy awareness of the political agenda of those promoting them, and a healthy awareness of exactly which media outlets these stories invariably start being published in**, and 95% or more of them COLLAPSE if you're half way intelligent and sensible about what you choose to believe.

**OK, the BBC often publishes such stories, usually but not always with a quote refuting them for 'balance', and with some token veneer of scepticism. But invariably, even the BBC version of these 'PC' stories started off somewhere else -- the Mail, the Express, a hysterical sensational headline in a local paper, some axe grinding agenda laden rent-a-quote Tory ...

'Political correctness gone too far' is all but a *total myth*, that anyone to the left of Genghiz Thatcher and anyone with brainpower above that of an amoeba should be embarassed to take seriously.


----------



## Dravinian (Aug 27, 2008)

William of Walworth said:


> Gmarthews and other 'PC gone too far ' obsessives, and anyone else : are you *in any way* under the impression that Christmas is under threat in the UK, do you think that in some places, overt celebration of Christmas gets 'banned' or discouraged?



What if they are not? What if they are just concerned that Political Correctness isn't some big political conspiracy, but is instead created and driven by jobsworths in petty bureaucratic positions making jack ass decisions based on what "they" think is right without a second glance to commonsense.

What if that is your opinion of Political Correctness?

Are you wrong?


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 27, 2008)

Dravinian said:


> What if they are not? What if they are just concerned that Political Correctness isn't some big political conspiracy, but is instead created and driven by jobsworths in petty bureaucratic positions making jack ass decisions based on what "they" think is right without a second glance to commonsense.
> 
> What if that is your opinion of Political Correctness?
> 
> Are you wrong?



No, the very phrase "Political correctness" was appropriated from Mao's Little Red Book by the US right to silence critics of its policies.


----------



## trevhagl (Aug 27, 2008)

nino_savatte said:


> No, the very phrase "Political correctness" was appropriated from Mao's Little Red Book by the US right to silence critics of its policies.



That could well be true, trouble is a lot of people who 'use' the spectre of political correctness to further their cause are twats (Nick Grifin etc) - and thats from someone who liked the Macc Lads.

I think it's when people start nitpicking and lecturing others is when the problems start. Some people are that brainwashed by the Sun etc that they don''t even want the human rights/workers rights/health and saftey that THEY themselves will benefit from


----------



## Pigeon (Aug 27, 2008)

Gmarthews said:


> You must have missed the first sentence of the quote, here it is again for your benefit




You fucking spanner!


----------



## Pigeon (Aug 27, 2008)

Gmarthews said:


> Just because i am white and male doesn't give everyone the right to take potshots at me.
> .



Lucky there's so much more, then!


----------



## William of Walworth (Aug 27, 2008)

Dravinian said:


> What if they are not? What if they are just concerned that Political Correctness isn't some big political conspiracy, but is instead created and driven by jobsworths in petty bureaucratic positions making jack ass decisions based on what "they" think is right without a second glance to commonsense.
> 
> What if that is your opinion of Political Correctness?
> 
> Are you wrong?



Here's a thought/question, which might tie in with yours : what if these petty people who *do* implement overzealous over petty decisons (and I don't deny their existence _ever_) are not part of some great Brigade of Political Correctness Liberal Thought Police, everywhere, but in reality more of matter of a very few incompetent twats in some places, far outnumbered by sensible people? What if the numbers in the twat catagory have been wildly exaggerated by the axe grinding, shitstirring 'PC' obsessed media, blowing up storms out of teacups and creating and perpetrating myths? What if peoples' concern is actually (in most cases) paranoia brought about by such wild exaggeration?

The feature about 'banning Christmas' myths shows pretty clearly how such myths can achieve such wide circulation and become be so widely believed, even when the vast majority of them are in fact bollocks.

Another thought : why might not a very few of the more stupid/out of touch public servants ('bureaucrats'  ) become _wrongly_ convinced that some minority might become offended if they don't implement some change or other? 

Might that conviction not be at least _something_ to do with the drip drip drip effect of repeated media tales of other, vaguely related 'PC' decisions implemented elsewhere, so as not to offend  a minority? But that in fact never happened, or not in the way reported?

In other words, as Burkemann hints in his article, 'PC' myths can feed off themselves and become at least in some cases (where not absolute lies and sensatioonalism per se) self perpetuating.

Just a point -- controversial, agreed. I'd also agree that this self perpetuating theory, the theory that a lot of 'PC' (where it exists at all) is partly down to the Daily Mail and others' success in making 'PC'ism so widely believed, needs work .....

But the mainstream media has a *lot* of power to convince, a factor NEVER allowed for by the undersceptical, over gullible, often hysterical idiots who believe so ferevantly that 'PC' is 'going mad'.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 27, 2008)

Pigeon said:


> Lucky there's so much more, then!



I always try and maintain a balance on all the things I write. I might not always get it right, but I read carefully what most people say, and then think.

What you and tarannau are doing is just taking joy from being rude to people, with no relevance to the thread.

Fela's comments are clearly very well thought out.



> Far more important than trying to change language use is trying to change thinking and attitudes.



A good point and the fact that you two simply dismiss this without comment, merely highlights your lack of interest in the subject. Ironically you are demonstrating what usually happens when confronted by someone who is PC obsessed and who has lost their grip on reality.

Let's take a topical one. Recently a charity has tried to get this image:







changed because it is seen by them as negative. Here's the article:



> "Very few older people are hunched over, with a walking stick. They are assuming everyone who is old looks like that, and they don't," said Lizzy McLennan, a senior policy officer at the charity.



But the point is that the sign needs to be recognisable quickly by the driver, so that they can take care - so what is the point of changing the sign? At best it would cause confusion, and that just can't be safe.

So I want to discuss this, and to be honest Fela is the only person here to really engage with the subject, while most of the others just attack 'ad hominem'.

It is one of the saddest things about U75 that trying to have a decent discussion is often stopped by others 

who are not interested in the discussion, 

but who wish to 'sit and abuse' as their fun.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 27, 2008)

> Fela's comments are clearly very well thought out.


`


----------



## exosculate (Aug 27, 2008)

Well I think there are parameters of debate within the UK culture, which are now well established, especially within the public sector, that narrow down and restrict the sophistication/complexity of debate that is possible to take place, less one be accused of all sorts of fictitious (and lets face it aimed to silence) sins.

The left responses on here are just as kneejerk/blinkered as the nonsensical mouthpieces that people so so hate like The Daily Mail.

Well funny this thread is!


----------



## William of Walworth (Aug 27, 2008)

exosculate said:


> The left responses on here are just as kneejerk/blinkered as the nonsensical mouthpieces that people so so hate like The Daily Mail.



False equivalence = bias.

Bias in faviour of lying scumsheets like the Mail -- in effect if not intention on your part, anyway.

Yeah, the 'left' (or some of them) *do* get exasperated, myself included, and no doubt very counterproductively at times, in *reaction* to this whole 'PC' mythology and all the widespread media fiction and stupid peoples' gullibility about it. 

At least you make a pretty well expressed point about parameters of debate, I work in the public sector, and (unsurprisingly!) I don't agree really. But in NO WAY does making efforts to be non discriminatory and simply POLITE and COURTEOUS about or in dealings with marginalised or discriminated against groups amount to censorship, which is what you seem to be suggesting.

I'm aware of the dangers of inventing offence where none exists, and going OTT in trying (on occasions cackhandedly or overzealously) to avoid giving it. The danger of 'speaking up for' various people without bothering to interact with them and without even bothering to find out what they think first, certainly exist. Ignorant, non listening elitism etc. 

Can happen -- though nowhere near to the hugely exaggerated, mythologised and plain lied about extent ranted on about by the Daily Mail and various other twattery-outlets. Part of whose agenda is to whip up bigots into a frothfoaming fury against things like the European Charter of Human Rights, the Race Relations Act, the Sex Discrimination Acxt, and so forth. And to offer such bigots a free pass to talk in exactly as much racist and bigotted language as they want and then use some made up, media-inflamed fantasy about  'political correctness gone mad' or 'left wing Guardianista fanaticism' as an excuse to carry on being stupid, offensive, plain rude bigots.

Any _rationall_ case there might be against _particular and isolated examples_ of  counterproductiveness or overzealousness by soime public officials is totally undermined by lining up in (effective) alliance with lying bigots  who claim that 'PC gone mad' is a national crisis.

It isn't. You are free to say what you think and think what you want, and so am I and so is everyone else. There is no 'brigade' of 'PC thought police' in any way constraining that in any kind of systematic way, in or out of the public sector.

And you're smart enough to be aware (really) that the VAST majority of people who feel the most pucefacedly indignant and angry about 'PC' are bonkers loons, far too eagerly prone (gullibly and stupidly) to believing second hand anecdotes in pubs, the vast majority of them originally sourced from the idiot press.

By accepting the concept of 'political correctness' as any kind of real problem, you end up allying yourself with thoroughly odious lying (or plain stupid and gullible) twats.


----------



## William of Walworth (Aug 28, 2008)

Gmarthews said:


> It is one of the saddest things about U75 that trying to have a decent discussion is often stopped by others
> 
> who are not interested in the discussion,
> 
> but who wish to 'sit and abuse' as their fun.



You haven't read either my posts or my link to that Oliver Burkemann article, have you, Gmarthews?

Yeah I dish out some (generalised) abuse -- and deserved abuse it is too, because it's aimed against gullible stupidity, and against unwillingness/inability to question media myths. I also engage with the actual subject, and among other things I offer a theory -- needing to be developed further no doubt  -- about why these 'PC' stories and myths are so widely believed AND about exactly why the vast majority of them are little more than myths.


Incidentally, on that Age Concern story, Michele Hanson, who is in her late 60s, last week offered in her Guardian column what I thought was a very well argued case against that charity's misplaced indignance**. She didn't use the words 'political correctness' once, and also showed better understanding of why AC had got annoyed by those signs  She also acknowledged that AC do a LOT of valuable work generally as advocates for older people and she didn't dismiss them as a bunch of stupid 'PC' fanatics.

**Signs don't worry the old, being ignored does

She made a far better and more cogently argued case than you did, because she knows that the whole idea of 'PC gone mad' is an utterly discredited concept for anyone halfway intelligent.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 28, 2008)

Gmarthews said:


> It is one of the saddest things about U75 that trying to have a decent discussion is often stopped by others
> 
> who are not interested in the discussion,
> 
> but who wish to 'sit and abuse' as their fun.



That wouldn't be connected with every single example you've posted in this thread being utter bollocks, by any chance?


----------



## yield (Aug 28, 2008)

butchersapron said:


> Gmarthews said:
> 
> 
> > Fela's comments are clearly very well thought out.
> ...



Worth repeating.



FridgeMagnet said:


> That wouldn't be connected with every single example you've posted in this thread being utter bollocks, by any chance?



Unfortunately Gmarthews idea of a "decent discussion" seems to involve people agreeing with him.

And to think he claims to be a teacher.

(((children)))


----------



## Gmart (Aug 28, 2008)

William of Walworth said:


> She made a far better and more cogently argued case than you did, because she knows that the whole idea of 'PC gone mad' is an utterly discredited concept for anyone halfway intelligent.



You can describe me as unintelligent if the ad hominem fallacy is your game, I have no fears there. The fact remains that changing the sign would cause confusion at best, and might even cause death as the motorist wonders as to what on earth that sign was. Whether that organisation has merit or not is neither here nor there. Changing the sign just because some people are a bit concerned that it might portray the Elderly in a negative way just shows that some people have more time than sense.

If you have an answer as to why the PC line should be immune to criticism, then prey tell. 

The story above shows that there is always another side to a story and that anyone who is interested in discussing the issue should recognise this instead of being abusive:



FridgeMagnet said:


> That wouldn't be connected with every single example you've posted in this thread being utter bollocks, by any chance?



For you to describe my posts thus is laughable. At the worst my posts are pointing out something which you think is wrong, but which I have the right in a free society to discuss. You should just ignore it, but you feel the need to abuse me by describing my posts as 'bollocks'.

You have not bothered to describe *why *it is impossible to be too PC, and why the PC line should be immune to my criticism - in fact you are just as evasive as the usual poster on U75.


----------



## Dravinian (Aug 28, 2008)

Gmarthews said:


> It is one of the saddest things about U75 that trying to have a decent discussion is often stopped by others
> 
> who are not interested in the discussion,
> 
> but who wish to 'sit and abuse' as their fun.



Thing is these people are very easy to spot.  I have almost all of them on ignore now.  It makes discussions so much easier.

How to spot them?

Simple really, they are the idiots who only ever type one line sentences in reply to topics, no matter how complex, how deep or how far into the debate you are.  They will write one line.

I give people a few chances, obviously sometimes you say all you want in one line, but if a poster keeps posting just one line sentences, then I put them on ignore.

I have shit loads of one line twats on ignore and it has made debating on the forum soo much easier.  I really, really strongly suggest you do it, you will find all of a sudden the only posts you see are people engaging in debate....and I will say there are some very good debaters on this site.


----------



## Dravinian (Aug 28, 2008)

William of Walworth said:


> Yeah I dish out some (generalised) abuse -- and deserved abuse it is too,



I don't think that was aimed at you William.  I think it is aimed at people like butchers and tarranau, who are usually more interested in scoring some group cred then they are engaging in debate.

One line attack sentences that don't really say anything, but require 5 minutes to explain how they completely misunderstood everything, most likely on purpose, to make an erroneous remark.

Those are the people I think Gmarthews is talking about.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 28, 2008)

If you have a point brother dravid, you don't need 500 words to make it.

I loke the dravinian/gmarthews alliance though - had to happen


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 28, 2008)

What I'd like to know is why Gmarthews finds it so hard to understand that the term "PC gone mad" is often deployed to control discussions and to eliminate any opposition. But this is par for the course for someone who has given high praise to the works of Ayn Rand. Randists are notoriously closed-minded and are entirely convinced that they are correct 100% of the time...it's their 'superior' logic, you see.


----------



## William of Walworth (Aug 28, 2008)

nino_savatte said:


> *What I'd like to know is why Gmarthews finds it so hard to understand that the term "PC gone mad" is often deployed to control discussions and to eliminate any opposition*. But this is par for the course for someone who has given high praise to the works of Ayn Rand. Randists are notoriously closed-minded and are entirely convinced that they are correct 100% of the time...it's their 'superior' logic, you see.



Indeed, getting so obsessive about 'PC gone mad' is just as censorious and controlling a mindset/political attitude as the made up strawman that the 'PC' obsessives claim to oppose.

I didn't know Gmarthews had anything to do with Ayn Rand, but his insistence on getting so indignantly insistent that 'Political Correctness' is so dangerous, so all pervasive, so 'gone mad' and so universally rampant, shows a TOTAL lack of
1. Perspective and balance
2. Any awareness that the entire concept of 'PC'/'political corrctness' is, or should be, UTTERLY discredited amongst anyone remotely intelligent or perceptive. 

Just look at the people who get so hysterical about 'PC' Gmarthews -- have a look at the people you're lining yourself up with politically and culturally, and have a look at what that defacto alliance makes YOU look like.

Do you ever question the truth of a 'PC' story Gmarthews, do you ever show any scepticism towards the versions of them that appear in the mainstream press or on the BBC?

Or are you just utterly gullible to lying Daily Mail propaganda and towards forthfoaming, borderline-insane and hardline Tory polemical pamphlets -- the rant in the OP that you praise so highly?

I notice that you've TOTALLY ignored Oliver Burkemann's article about the media myths and lies concerning 'banning Christmas', and the wider implications of those myths about 'PC' generally.

How convenient.


----------



## XerxesVargas (Aug 28, 2008)

In my experience the "PC gone mad" brigade are angry middle aged men who are railing against the fact that their dodgy opinions are being shown to be just that, dodgy idiot opnions. They tend to start a lot of sentences with "I know you're not allowed to say this anymore..." and then go on to spout crap about "darkies" or "the gays" or somesuch. Its a symptom of their impotence in the face of a world that has moved on and left them unable to update thier prejudices.


----------



## Pigeon (Aug 28, 2008)

FridgeMagnet said:


> That wouldn't be connected with every single example you've posted in this thread being utter bollocks, by any chance?




Why, quite possibly!


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 28, 2008)

William of Walworth said:


> Indeed, getting so obsessive about 'PC gone mad' is just as censorious and controlling a mindset/political attitude as the made up strawman that the 'PC' obsessives claim to oppose.
> 
> I didn't know Gmarthews had anything to do with Ayn Rand, but his insistence on getting so indignantly insistent that 'Political Correctness' is so dangerous, so all pervasive, so 'gone mad' and so universally rampant, shows a TOTAL lack of
> 1. Perspective and balance
> ...



Quite, it's another means of censoring folk. Marthews had a thread in the Philosophy forum where he was giving Rand head....I mean, praise. The line he takes tends to fit in well with the Randist method of debate.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 28, 2008)

The thing is, there's grounds to criticise what's become known as 'pc' _from the left_, about it prefering to sweep prejudice under the carpet rather than deal with the material inequalities and so on that produce these prejudices - but when you get idiots wanting to rant on about africans with AIDs under cover of being freedom fighters then frankly they can go fuck themselves.


----------



## William of Walworth (Aug 28, 2008)

Gmarthews said:


> The fact remains that changing the sign would cause confusion at best, and might even cause death as the motorist wonders as to what on earth that sign was. Whether that organisation has merit or not is neither here nor there. Changing the sign just because some people are a bit concerned that it might portray the Elderly in a negative way just shows that some people have more time than sense.



You appear to be under the impression that I'm defending the sign. I am not, and neither is Michele Hanson, who makes a far better case against it than you -- mostly because she avoids the thoroughly tainted and discredited term 'political correctness'



> If you have an answer as to why the PC line should be immune to criticism, then prey tell.



You haven't actually read my posts have you?

Have you read my in-development theory about why some, a few, public officials might make idiotic, overzealous desicions, the decisions YOU claim I'm 'defending', the decisons YOU claim I say are immune to criticism?

The decisions you, and the Daily Mail, and Jeremy Clarkson, and Richard Littlejohn, and Nick Griffin, link together, however disparate, and label as 'PC gone mad'. Those RARE and disparate and separate and isolated decisions that in reality happen at random and on occasion, when they've not been totally made up or sensationalised out of next to nothing and  blown out of all proportion. Decisions which are far rarer than the Maily Telegraph lies to you that they are, and which are not in any way part of any great liberal 'Political Correctness' censorship campaign at all, but which you remain convinced are part of an overarching ubiquitous conspiracy to silence and censor you and all straight talking right thinking folk in this land ...

Any idea how INSANE that obsession  makes you look?



> . At the worst my posts are pointing out something which you think is wrong, *but which I have the right in a free society to discuss*. You should just ignore it, but you feel the need to abuse me by describing my posts as 'bollocks'.



I said a lot more than bollocks, my posts contain plenty of serious contradiction of your claims, which you've ignored.

And bit in bold, do us a favour, you're not some martyr to terrible censorship nor some hero of bold thinking and free speech. You're 100% free to make your points, to say what you want and think what you want, but if you make highly dubious claims and and only answer other peoples' posts ultra selectively, dismissing any contradiction of you as mindless left wong abuse, then you can exopect to get some robust criticisms -- deal with them.



> You have not bothered to describe *why *it is impossible to be too PC, and why the PC line should be immune to my criticism - in fact you are just as evasive as the usual poster on U75.



My point Gmarthews, is that 'political correctness' is a tired old cobwebbed cliche, thoroughly discredited (or it should be) amongst anyone who isn't a barking right wing fruitbat. 

Moreover, 'PC'  is a concept 95% of which exists in the fevered imaginations of the Daily Mail editorial staff and their political associates, and amongst the gullible fools who believe their lies.

Stop recycling such a discredited and exttremist and right wing cliche-label so mindlessly in your efforts to describe what you're talking about and this sorry excuse for a 'debate' might just get somewhere.


----------



## Pigeon (Aug 28, 2008)

Gmarthews said:


> I always try and maintain a balance on all the things I write. I might not always get it right, but I read carefully what most people say, and then think.
> 
> What you and tarannau are doing is just taking joy from being rude to people, with no relevance to the thread.



Bullshit. Amongst the other ill thought out tripe you've spurted on this thread was some nonsense about how Michael Moore could diss white men, and how that demonstrates a disparity of power, cos no one would talk about black people's behaviour in similar terms yadda yadda yadda. I held up the example of Chris Rock; you completely ignored me, as it didn't fit your idiot worldview.


----------



## William of Walworth (Aug 28, 2008)

butchersapron said:


> The thing is, there's grounds to criticise what's become known as 'pc' _from the left_, about it prefering to sweep prejudice under the carpet rather than deal with the material inequalities and so on that produce these prejudices - but when you get idiots wanting to rant on about africans with AIDs under cover of being freedom fighters then frankly they can go fuck themselves.



Yeah, I don't disagree really, apols for not allowing for this. There are fair criticisms to be made -- most effectively made (IMO) by avoiding the term 'PC' at all.


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 28, 2008)

I noticed that Marthews hasn't commented about rightist PC: it's the sort of logic that insists that if you criticise Israel you are automatically a Holocaust denier.


----------



## fela fan (Aug 28, 2008)

I see posters are now talking again about the pc they see in the papers.

The pc i talk about is the stuff i come across in my own life in my own experiences.

It's not about bans on christmas and the like, it's just that many british people do not like to hear certain words, and impose themselves on others in their attempts to have those words judged negatively and to have them not used.

The reason given when asked for one, is that such words are offensive to others. Not themselves, mind, but to others.

Oh, the wonders of language. It really is the currency of the powerful, and the self-empowered. It's a tool to control others, and it's a tool to avoid being controlled by others.

Governments themselves are always trying to control the use of language. They recognise the power of the medium...


----------



## Pigeon (Aug 28, 2008)

Gmarthews said:


> Let's take a topical one. Recently a charity has tried to get this image:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




So a silly season story about some comments that there's abosolutely no indication anyone's going to act on demonstrates...well, what exactly?


----------



## Pigeon (Aug 28, 2008)

butchersapron said:


> when you get idiots wanting to rant on about africans with AIDs under cover of being freedom fighters then frankly they can go fuck themselves.



Amen.


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 28, 2008)

fela fan said:


> I see posters are now talking again about the pc they see in the papers.
> 
> The pc i talk about is the stuff i come across in my own life in my own experiences.
> 
> ...



Not sure where you're heading with this but let's be clear about something: when people start spouting off about "political correctness" there is always an underlining agenda for doing so. This isn't necessarily a practice that has been sanctioned by governments, rather it is employed by actors who believe that they have the interests of the state at heart and that their ideology is the only valid one. Examples of this would include soi-disant defenders of 'liberty' like Policy Exchange in the UK or the American Enterprise Institute or Heritage Foundation in the US.


----------



## fela fan (Aug 28, 2008)

William of Walworth said:


> Moreover, 'PC'  is a concept 95% of which exists in the fevered imaginations of the Daily Mail editorial staff and their political associates, and amongst the gullible fools who believe their lies.
> 
> Stop recycling such a discredited and exttremist and right wing cliche-label so mindlessly in your efforts to describe what you're talking about and this sorry excuse for a 'debate' might just get somewhere.



Oh my. 95% eh?

'Fevered'?

Just the daily mail?

You're assertions, disguised as facts in your choice of such emphatic language, are no different to the very tabloid you ridicule.

Amazing that.

Useful methods to advance the debate you apparently want.


----------



## fela fan (Aug 28, 2008)

nino_savatte said:


> Not sure where you're heading with this but let's be clear about something: when people start spouting off about "political correctness" there is always an underlining agenda for doing so.



Well mate, it can't be 'always', because i talk about political correctness, and i don't have any covert agenda for doing so. If i did i'd be employing pc myself!

So even i'm the single lone person who doesn't do this, it means you will have to revise your use of 'always'...

But rereading what you said, perhaps i can find a way that you were right after all: if somebody literally 'spouts off', then perhaps your judgement can be considered correct.

But what if somebody, like myself, merely talks about the subject, discusses it in a rational mature way?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 28, 2008)

Is this an attack 

of the people

who want

to post

like this

to pad out a single crude point

?


----------



## fela fan (Aug 28, 2008)

Pigeon said:


> So a silly season story about some comments that there's abosolutely no indication anyone's going to act on demonstrates...well, what exactly?



Oh dear pigeon. PC is not about actions, it's about language and the 'correct' use of it. 

Just because that sign might not be changed, the talk about changing it is what counts towards something being politically correct.


----------



## fela fan (Aug 28, 2008)

butchersapron said:


> Is this an attack
> 
> of the people
> 
> ...



Referring to my post? 

If so, it wasn't an attack on my part. Although apparently it was in your reality. Oh well.


----------



## Pigeon (Aug 28, 2008)

fela fan said:


> Oh dear pigeon. PC is not about actions, it's about language and the 'correct' use of it.
> 
> Just because that sign might not be changed, the talk about changing it is what counts towards something being politically correct.




Strange. I thought you were _all about _liguistic freedom?


----------



## fela fan (Aug 28, 2008)

Pigeon said:


> Strange. I thought you were _all about _liguistic freedom?



Well, i wouldn't quite put it like that. But i am about linguistic freedom yes.


----------



## Pigeon (Aug 28, 2008)

fela fan said:


> Well, i wouldn't quite put it like that. But i am about linguistic freedom yes.



So why get a bug about your arse about people using _their_ "linguistic freedom " to discuss whether a roadsign might get changed?


----------



## Pigeon (Aug 28, 2008)

Gmarthews said:


> some people have more time than sense.




That'll be my question answered...


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 28, 2008)

fela fan said:


> Well mate, it can't be 'always', because i talk about political correctness, and i don't have any covert agenda for doing so. If i did i'd be employing pc myself!
> 
> So even i'm the single lone person who doesn't do this, it means you will have to revise your use of 'always'...
> 
> ...


----------



## exosculate (Aug 28, 2008)

William of Walworth said:


> False equivalence = bias.
> 
> Bias in faviour of lying scumsheets like the Mail -- in effect if not intention on your part, anyway.
> 
> ...



I do not believe you understand what i am saying. You are equating the critique with giving permission for racism and sexism. 

p.s - I can see the angry froth dripping from your post too btw.


----------



## William of Walworth (Aug 28, 2008)

exosculate said:


> I do not believe you understand what i am saying. You are equating the critique with giving permission for racism and sexism.



No I'm not** . My main point is that the people who get most worked up about what they call 'PC', or what they're told is 'PC', tend to show extreme gullibility and underscepticism about media-propogated myths and lies.

**It's not my principal point anyway, that media-raving about 'PC' gives cover for bigotry and prejudice. But do you honestly think there's much _serious_ 'critique' in circulation against so-called 'PC' that isn't heavily politically compromised? And that isn't reliant on stories/folkmyths/media lies/exaggerations? Plus see nino's points on this.




> p.s - I can see the angry froth dripping from your post too btw.



I dispute 'froth'  -- is that not rather sneerily dismissive of *my* critique? And as for anger,  it any surprise, given the odious sort of politics adhered to by MOST people who get so aereated about 'PC'?


----------



## Gmart (Aug 28, 2008)

Dravinian said:


> Thing is these people are very easy to spot.  I have almost all of them on ignore now.  It makes discussions so much easier.
> 
> How to spot them?
> 
> ...



I am working on a ignore list and it is indeed helping. Now people like Butcher's Apron and Violent Panda and Nino Savette have to actually SAY something interesting, thus meaning that someone else feels the urge to quote them. Usually they say nothing even remotely interesting enough 

I have been told that WoW should also be on my ignore list, but we shall see.

I love that I am here arguing against PC going too far - as the implication (for those of you who are not frothing at the mouth) is that being PC is good in general, but that a certain objectivity has to be maintained to avoid going too far.

Ironically I am being attacked by posters using the strawman fallacy, which is taking my moderate position and exaggerating it to an extreme to make it look stupid.

I read the Xmas article and I was happy to note that common sense came out on top of the forces I am trying to talk about. Good! 

Chris Rock indeed goes on record about how stupid some black men are, but he doesn't publish a book entitled 'Stupid Black Men', and I suspect it would test the resolve of any publisher if he tried.

People in power are fair game apparently to be attacked because their group has historically had it so good - and the principle of that stinks!

Sure the Daily Mail and Sun etc make good money dramatising stories too far, even into strawman areas of exaggeration, but I am not particularly supporting these publications. 

WoW thinks that 95% of PC gone mad stories disintegrate when looked at in detail, but I think that figure is just too high, and the implication that we should therefore *ignore *them is just laziness creating an agenda.

I have consistently argued against the continual usage of fallacies on these boards and I will continue to do so.


----------



## tarannau (Aug 28, 2008)

Gmarthews said:


> Chris Rock indeed goes on record about how stupid some black men are, but he doesn't publish a book entitled 'Stupid Black Men', and I suspect it would test the resolve of any publisher if he tried.
> .



So he releases a huge selling tour and DVD based around that material and it's supposed to be evidence of a double-standard?

Besides, you nugget, there's already a book called Stupid Black Men out there (check Amazon if you don't believe me). Do you actually engage brain before you post? Your post is a load of fatuous, reason-free nonsense.


----------



## William of Walworth (Aug 28, 2008)

Gmarthews said:


> *I have been told that WoW should also be on my ignore list*, but we shall see



One idly wonders by whom ...



> Ironically I am being attacked by posters using the strawman fallacy, which is taking my moderate position and exaggerating it to an extreme to make it look stupid.



<Searches for any 'moderation' n Gmarthews' position. Or indeed for any coherence, or rationality, or analysis, or nuance, or balance. Fails  >




> I read the Xmas article and I was happy to note that common sense came out on top of the forces I am trying to talk about. Good!



Thanks for reading it. But why 'Xmas' btw? Are you trying not to offend anyone? 

Did you note the *real* points in that article? 

1. That these stories avout Christmas being 'banned' are overwhelmingly fabricated, media-froth rubbish.
2. That those trumpeting most loudly about such 'bans' are either lying, or relying on lies, to make their 'point'?
3. That almost all of the 'common sense' you mention lies not with any imaginary backtracking from any imaginary plans to ban Christmas (as you seem to imply -- your point on that is erm a tad obscure!). But -- as Burkemann exposes in many many examples -- in not making any plans to do anything other than completely traditionally with Christmas in the first place. 



> People in power are fair game apparently to be attacked because their group has historically had it so good - and the principle of that stinks!



You've lost me completely there. Relevance to anything I or anyone else has said??? Point of your point?



> Sure the Daily Mail and Sun etc make good money dramatising stories too far, even into strawman areas of exaggeration, *but I am not particularly supporting these publications. *



Yes you are -- by recycling their take on the whole 'PC' phenomenon so uncritically. 

By your very _use_ of the 'PC' phrase you implicitly endorse their lies about it and recycle their cliches. By never (at least not on here!) challenging, or even critically questioning, any 'PC gone mad' story in the mainstream media you endorse the impression that 'PC' has indeed gone mad. By being totally unaware (it seemed earlier on) of the loaded ideological agenda of the author of your Great Work, you show your absence of any critical faculties.



> WoW thinks that 95% of PC gone mad stories disintegrate when looked at in detail



That's because so very many of those stories do. Only 95% is pretty generous of me I'd say (admittedly the figure was a broad brushstroke to make a point). 

Prove otherwise that so vast a proportion of them _don't_ disintegrate. 

That would  be be an interesting exercise for you actually, might require you to examine some of thoe stories yourelf, critically and analytically and in applying a 'how true is this _really?'_ prism. And in depth!



> but I think that figure is just too high



Rough ballpark figure sure, but one based on lengthy experience of analysing the mainstream media and their 'PC' stories sceptically and critically -- try that some time -- at length and in depth.



> and the implication that we should therefore *ignore*them is just laziness creating an agenda.



Where did I say ignore the stories?

I suggest analysing them critically and sceptically, with a fine toothcomb. A great idea, given that such a _very_ large prooprtion of 'PC Outrage!!' stories are made up bollocks.





> I have consistently argued against the continual usage of fallacies on these boards and I will continue to do so.



I eagerly anticpate your firing up your sophisticatred 'Myth Buster!' (R, TM) machine. Suggested target :  second hand tales of some  'PC gone mad' obsessives, they have enough fallacies going on to provide some class target practice ....


----------



## Gmart (Aug 28, 2008)

tarannau said:


> So he releases a huge selling tour and DVD based around that material and it's supposed to be evidence of a double-standard?
> 
> Besides, you nugget, there's already a book called Stupid Black Men out there (check Amazon if you don't believe me). Do you actually engage brain before you post? Your post is a load of fatuous, reason-free nonsense.



So what? You think that just because I'm wrong on this means that everything else I said is not relevant? You're just showing yourself up as exactly what I'm talking about. Sometimes you just gotta *sit and think* rather than just reacting and following the PC line unthinkingly. I am NOT stating that PC is wrong, I am just attacking the assumption that it is immune to criticism. OFTEN the ideals clash and then the catch-all simplicity of the PC line is shown to be far from consistent.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 29, 2008)

William of Walworth said:


> Thanks for reading it. But why 'Xmas' btw? Are you trying not to offend anyone?


Takes less time to type than the longer version.


William of Walworth said:


> Did you note the *real* points in that article?


Sure, so why should this prevent me from observing that the PC line is used instead of thinking?


William of Walworth said:


> Yes you are -- by recycling their take on the whole 'PC' phenomenon so uncritically.


On the contrary I enjoy their dramatising of it, so what if people are falling for their drama? Heartbeat is probably still on every Sunday, and that's a story too. 

Your problem? You don't trust people.


William of Walworth said:


> By your very _use_ of the 'PC' phrase you endorse their lies about it and recycle their cliches.


Because people are robots and cannot make up their own mind?


William of Walworth said:


> By never (at least not on here!) challenging, or even critically questioning, any 'PC gone mad' story in the mainstream media you endorse the impression that 'PC' has indeed gone mad. By being totally unaware (it seemed earlier on) of the loaded ideological agenda of the author of your Great Work, you show your absence of any critical faculties.


I am not actually stating that PC has gone mad though. I am merely cautioning going too far the other way. It is preferable, of course, to have as much awareness of all sides of any story if one can.

Heck I even BUY the Star every now and then, it is fun. It is fiction.


William of Walworth said:


> Prove otherwise that so vast a proportion of them _don''t_ disintegrate.


Well the Roadsign one will do.


William of Walworth said:


> That would  be be an interesting exercise for you actually, might require you to examine some of those stories yourself, critically and analytically and in applying a 'how true is this _really?'_ prism. And in depth!


So let's see then, the charity did indeed call for the change, and failed to appreciate that any change in the sign would not help in their quest to help the Elderly. Ask yourself why they need to change the sign. The existing sign has been the sign for 25 years, with all that time the motorists are currently trained to react to the sign in the required way. So why change it?

I can see the point you are making; that if we rubbish the PC line then we could possibly go back to the old way of thinking before the PC line was invented, thus failing to protect the people who need protection.

But the existence of my example above evidently shows that such concern should be on *both sides* of the equation, NOT just one.


----------



## fela fan (Aug 29, 2008)

I would argue that political correctness is a result of our apparently inherent need to categorise people into groups. If we weren't so busy labelling people and then judging them based on the traits that that group of people are held to have, then PC would not have surfaced. PC is a reaction to a negative strand of thinking. PC is an effort made for positive reasons to negate something that we have already made negative. 

Liberals, commies, right wingers, left wingers, muslims, blacks, whites, women, men, ford mondeo men, middle class, working class, daily mail readers, sun readers, celebrities, fat people, tories, labour sorts, new labour sorts, prostitutes, and... wait for it...PC people!! Oh, and on this website CTers. Once a person has been labelled, then everything is known about them according to the group they've been identified in!! An outcome is of course a lot of judgements of people.

And another outcome is everyone fighting for the rights of the group they've identified themselves to belong to.

Nobody fights for human rights. If they did, there'd be no need for political correctness, no need for racism, no need for gender imbalances, no need for religious extremism.

Language in general reflects our thinking. If we ban language, does that wipe out the thinking that went with it? No, unlikely. Often it just goes underground leaving ticking time bombs detrimental to the general good of society.

If we change our thinking, then our language will change accordingly.

And THAT is the key to a more peaceful and just society. PC has taken us down the wrong route, albeit for positive, if misguided reasons.


----------



## fela fan (Aug 29, 2008)

I would like to add too that the clue to PC not being of any much use is the word 'politically' in the term. Politics is the art of divisiveness, of exclusivity; not inclusiveness, not togetherness.

Politically correct just means you say the 'right' things. But it says nothing about thinking the 'right' things.


----------



## William of Walworth (Aug 29, 2008)

No time for this now, I'm off for the weekend pretty soon and I won't be back til later on Monday. There was an earlier post by fela that I wanted to take on as well, but I was leaving it until I had more time. I disagree fundamentally with his take on this, and, still, with Gmarthews' take as well, but it'll all have to wait.

More later etc.


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 2, 2008)

Finally  got around to reading Julian Petley's review of the Anthony Browne book which Gmarthews used as the prompt to start this thread.

Worth reposting the link to that review** (thanks butchers for posting it originally) because it's full of hard hitting, no nonsense, common sense 

**To be fair, Gmarthews did relink by quoting the relevant post from butvhersapron in a previous thread

Petley's main point is essentially mine : the supposed 'tyranny' of 'PC' is a media construct, founded on evidence-light, media generated, highly politicised folk myths for the most part.

Crazy World of Anthony Browne indeed -- and of almost all of those dwelling on the furthest reaches of Planet Anti-'PC' ...


----------



## exosculate (Sep 2, 2008)

William of Walworth said:


> Finallly  got around to reading Julian Petley's review of the book which Gmarthews used as the prompt to this thread.
> 
> Worth reposting the link to that review (thanks butchers for posting it originally) because it's full of hard hitting, no nonsense, common sense
> 
> His main point is essentially mine : the supposed 'tyranny' of 'PC' is a media construct, founded on evidence-light, media generated, highly politicised folk myths for the most part.



There is an alternative critique which is not talked about at all in the media, which is that _PCland_ ignore class. They (the agenda setters) engage on ethnicity, gender, sexuality, disability etc etc etc - but never on class. This is the root of the problem.

This is partly the cause of Dagenham Dave voting in a certain way. We will never have cohesion where class is not given full recognition within the analysis.


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 2, 2008)

I'd agree with all that except where you attribute the absence of class centred discussion to 'PC' -- I'd put that *much* more down to the ever increasing consensus in favour of free market based economics and ideology. Colluded in and advanced by nearly all main political parties and figures, for a long time, and rarely more so than now.

Were Milton Friedman and Margaret Thatcher 'politically correct'?? 

Not that they were the only free marketeers, of course not, but I overemphasise to make a broader point ...


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 2, 2008)

Interesting piece by Max Hastings here -- not at all what I'd have expected of him, and running pretty much counter to the 'PC' obsessed worldview adhered to by so many of his fellow conservatives.


----------



## Gmart (Sep 2, 2008)

William of Walworth said:


> Crazy World of Anthony Browne indeed -- and of almost all of those dwelling on the furthest reaches of Planet Anti-'PC' ...



So you are not going to comment on my precise responses in #183, but you are just going to agree with this review. Your silence speaks volumes.

I also read the review of course, but I also read the book itself, and it was good. The examples _occasionally _went too far but to echo the Grayling review it "mostly convinced".

I don't consider this issue to be media driven and therefore to be dismissed; it is about recognising that we need balance on both sides rather than just blindly going down the PC line and refusing to think about the other sides involved.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 2, 2008)

> I don't consider this issue to be media driven and therefore to be dismissed; it is about recognising that we need balance on both sides rather than just blindly going down the PC line and refusing to think about the other sides involved.



A. Who said it was "media-driven"?
B. What do you mean by "balance"?
C. You seem to have a problem with the fact that the phrase "PC gone mad" is a way of shutting down discourse. Thus far, all i have had from you is the usual crap about me not being "serious". Tbh, I don't think you're being serious or _sincere _in your intentions


----------



## fogbat (Sep 2, 2008)

Gmarthews said:


> So what? You think that just because I'm wrong on this means that everything else I said is not relevant? You're just showing yourself up as exactly what I'm talking about. Sometimes you just gotta *sit and think* rather than just reacting and following the PC line unthinkingly. I am NOT stating that PC is wrong, I am just attacking the assumption that it is immune to criticism. OFTEN the ideals clash and then the catch-all simplicity of the PC line is shown to be far from consistent.



It does rather demonstrate once more that you're basing your argument on the funny little opinions in your brain box rather than fact.

e2a: I'm sure I could have worked the phrase "arse dribble" into that sentence somewhere. Please imagine I had.


----------



## fela fan (Sep 2, 2008)

nino_savatte said:


> A. Who said it was "media-driven"?



WoW in #187 called it a media construct. I guess that's the same as being media-driven.


----------



## fela fan (Sep 2, 2008)

William of Walworth said:


> Petley's main point is essentially mine : the supposed 'tyranny' of 'PC' is a media construct, founded on evidence-light, media generated, highly politicised folk myths for the most part.



Well mate, my experiences of PC operating in society, not the media, are what cause me to make my comments. And one place i know it operates in a horribly censoring kind of way is in the British Council schools. Truly appalling outcomes occur, where the verve and fun of humanity is driven out of the teachers who work there. It's a PC language world gone mad at the BC...


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 2, 2008)

fela fan said:


> WoW in #187 called it a media construct. I guess that's the same as being media-driven.



Well, it tends to be broadcast by the media. I can't count the numbers of red tops and mid-range tabloids (like The Daily Mail) that have articles on a weekly (or more frequent) basis that declare a hatred of "PC". Moreover, many so-called grassroots campaigns that have been organised by these papers are nothing of the sort.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 2, 2008)

Perhaps you missed these links when I first posted them
http://www.capc.co.uk/
http://www.politicallyincorrect.me.uk/

Remember the Bruges Group? Even they have a say on PC. Such paranoia. Such a blatant desire to control discourses.



> Political correctness is like a poisonous gas seeping through the air, creeping inside our national institutions and taking over our great country.
> 
> Like many invisible poisonous gases, it came from behind and attacked when we least expected it. Initially we were compliant, quiet and accepting – almost in a state of shock. Despite it not sitting comfortably with our way of life, most of us just ignored it and hoped it would go away. Only now are most people waking up to the real danger that political correctness poses.
> 
> ...


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 2, 2008)

Gmarthews said:


> So you are not going to comment on my precise responses in #183, but you are just going to agree with this review. Your silence speaks volumes.
> 
> I also read the review of course, but I also read the book itself, and it was good. The examples _occasionally _went too far but to echo the Grayling review it "mostly convinced".
> 
> I don't consider this issue to be media driven and therefore to be dismissed; it is about recognising that we need balance on both sides rather than just blindly going down the PC line and refusing to think about the other sides involved.



'Blindly'. 'refusing to think'

Which examples 'went too far'?


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 2, 2008)

Gmarthews said:
			
		

> Your silence speaks volumes.



Thats pretty rich coming from you.

You've raised selective reading of some peoples' posts, and complete ignoral of the posts of several other contributors, into an artform in this thread.

No time for more atm.


----------



## fela fan (Sep 2, 2008)

William of Walworth said:


> Thats pretty rich coming from you.
> 
> You've raised selective reading of some peoples' posts, and complete ignoral of the posts of several other contributors, into an artform in this thread.
> 
> No time for more atm.



But are you doing the same mate?! You said before the weekend you were coming back with replies. I've posited a different angle to PC than the one you think the debate is centred on, yet silence!

Now, no more time again!


----------



## fela fan (Sep 2, 2008)

nino_savatte said:


> Well, it tends to be broadcast by the media. I can't count the numbers of red tops and mid-range tabloids (like The Daily Mail) that have articles on a weekly (or more frequent) basis that declare a hatred of "PC". Moreover, many so-called grassroots campaigns that have been organised by these papers are nothing of the sort.



They're pandering to their readership mate. Gotta sell papers.

But we don't need to restrict our debate here to the media refrain 'it's pc gone mad'.

PC is a cancer from where i'm looking, and i don't see any of the content in the papers you're talking about. In fact i just don't look at any papers from britain any more.

PC is an effort by some to curtail freedom of thinking and freedom of expression in others. I've seen this for years now. It's all born from having so many disparate groups all chasing their own rights. The 'P' in the acronym is so so succinct.


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 2, 2008)

Like others, I genuinely don't have time for everything, especially not right now. You can't demand every single aspect of every single post be immediately attended to.

You might say the same applies to Gmarthews etc., but he HAS completely ignored certain posts and posters.

Can't do this justice now.


----------



## Gmart (Sep 2, 2008)

William of Walworth said:


> Like others, I genuinely don't have time for everything, especially not right now. You can't demand every single aspect of every single post be immediately attended to.
> 
> You might say the same applies to Gmarthews etc., but he HAS completely ignored certain posts and posters.
> 
> Can't do this justice now.



Still I took your entire post and commented on pretty much all of it phrase by phrase, whereas you just ignored my entire post. 

If there is a topic you feel I have ignored please feel free to tell me, meanwhile I leave you with the comment that two wrongs don't make a right...


----------



## fela fan (Sep 2, 2008)

William of Walworth said:


> Like others, I genuinely don't have time for everything, especially not right now. You can't demand every single aspect of every single post be immediately attended to.
> 
> You might say the same applies to Gmarthews etc., but he HAS completely ignored certain posts and posters.
> 
> Can't do this justice now.



Fair enough mate, but you specifically said you'd return after the weekend to reply to something i'd said. Since i thought i'd left myself open to attack, i was looking forward to the reply and a chance to correct you, or myself! 

I'm not demanding anything. Just reacting to your proposed reply!


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 2, 2008)

Gmarthews said:


> Still I took your entire post and commented on pretty much all of it phrase by phrase,



Which is why no one read it.


----------



## fela fan (Sep 2, 2008)

butchersapron said:


> Which is why no one read it.



If you even begin to think you're some kind of academic, critical reader, objective analyser, then you've seriously gone wrong with that comment.

You are almost as blatantly wrong as someone saying liverpool are the best team in the world these days.

Such nonsense.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 2, 2008)

I am some kind of academic, critical reader, objective analyser.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 2, 2008)

fela fan said:


> They're pandering to their readership mate. Gotta sell papers.
> 
> But we don't need to restrict our debate here to the media refrain 'it's pc gone mad'.
> 
> ...



It sounds like you've bought into the whole lot, from where I'm sitting.


----------



## fela fan (Sep 2, 2008)

nino_savatte said:


> It sounds like you've bought into the whole lot, from where I'm sitting.



Fine by me. Think what you want mate instead of trying to clarify things. You ever experienced a british council school?


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 2, 2008)

fela fan said:


> Fine by me. Think what you want mate instead of trying to clarify things. You ever experienced a british council school?



Did you even bother to look at the links that I posted? No.


----------



## fela fan (Sep 2, 2008)

nino_savatte said:


> Did you even bother to look at the links that I posted? No.



No i didn't. Maybe another time when i have the time.


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 3, 2008)

fela fan said:
			
		

> They're pandering to their readership mate. Gotta sell papers.
> 
> But we don't need to restrict our debate here to the media refrain 'it's pc gone mad'.
> 
> ...





nino_savatte said:


> It sounds like you've bought into the whole lot, from where I'm sitting.



FF, this claim from you, and an earlier similar one, was the matter I'd wanted to reply to. 

You can't claim that established UK media discourse on 'PC' is irrelevant to your own take on it, given the massive similarities in tone you both adopt. Your very use and definition of the term 'political correctness'  and your rather wild claim that 'PC' is a 'cancer', is fairly inseperable from mainstream right wing take on the subject in the UK media, whether in the papers (which you say you never see) or among the people who undercritically , undersceptically and over gullibly allow themselves to be influenced by them (people you no doubt would claim not to be influenced by).

It doesn't add up. You wouldn't be talking about 'political correctness' at all, in the way you do, if you hadn't already bought more or less completely into established (and profoundly conservative) ways of defining it -- whatever 'it' is!! ---  reacting to it, perceiving it. However unintentional  that influence, the influence is there and very visible in your posts.

You can cite British Council examples  of 'PC' that you claim actually exist, as much as you like,  but I have this funny feeling that you may already have reached a conclusion on 'PC', and will therefore be inclined to take most notice of the self-perceived/self defined examples  that most fit your already arrived at conclusion.

Sounds familiar?? 

For objectivity's sake, it could be useful to hear exactly what examples you mean (you've been VERY vague on detail so far!) *and* what the British Council themselves say about it. Their version, not your summary of it ....


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Sep 3, 2008)

The thing is of course that fela has absolutely no idea about anything to do with the UK media whatsoever. I must warn you of this - he really doesn't have the first clue, and doesn't care (he "doesn't do evidence"). If I were you I would not bother.


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 3, 2008)

Gmarthews said:
			
		

> Still I took your entire post and commented on pretty much all of it phrase by phrase, whereas you just ignored my entire post.



'Not having time for' is not the same as 'ignoring'. Remember I've been away all weekend and at other earlier times too.



> If there is a topic you feel I have ignored please feel free to tell me, meanwhile I leave you with the comment that two wrongs don't make a right...



The entire substance of Julian Petley's review is something you've ignored really. 

He pretty much demolished any claim by Browne might have to be an objective, critically discerning historical observer. I'm a historian by background myself, and to me the severest criticism of Browne is his unquestioning  acceptance and regugitation of tabloid versions of self-defined 'PC' reality** as some sort of established objective truth. And it's not just Petley making this point.

**and BBC stories -- hello, Today!  -- recycling lightly disguised Daily Mail ones doesn't make the stories any less bollocks

You may claim to be opposed to exaggeration (or whatever) 'on both sides,', but ALL your own criticism in this thread has been exclusively reserved for the side you see, or are told are, 'PC'. Without -- it seems to me -- you ever substantively criticising the politics, motives, credentials and ultra-selective use of 'evidence' (from often dodgy and unreliable sources) of people like Browne.

Nino's links/information much earlier about Browne's political background, allies and credentials shows you clearly enough that the man is pushing a very partisan agenda. You seem to think that's irrelevant too.

And see my reply to fela above -- I'd say the same to you as I would to him -- your posts give every appearance of you having bought *right* into the  established media take on this 'PC' phenomenon. One that in the vast majority of cases, the mainstream right wing media and their very conservative, riduculously partisan allies have invented, defined, demonised, named and lied about.

Being 'objective' between two sides on an issue as polarised as this, not that you're being in any way objective about 'PC' anyway, is like 'objectively' allowing that that creationism and evolutionary science have equal validity.

I'm not objective about 'PC' myself, far from. Still, my being willing to take a clear positon myself does not mean I'm mindlessly defending any odd example of dodginess that may exist (before you start preremptorily ordering me to justify every example on *your* list of 'PC' outrages). 

But at least my take on all this isn't being shaped -- even indirectly -- by  lie-recycling chalatans like Browne.


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 3, 2008)

FridgeMagnet said:


> The thing is of course that fela has absolutely no idea about anything to do with the UK media whatsoever. I must warn you of this - he really doesn't have the first clue, and doesn't care (he "doesn't do evidence"). If I were you I would not bother.



Fair dos ... you're more familiar with his modus operandi on here than I am I should think.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 3, 2008)

FridgeMagnet said:


> The thing is of course that fela has absolutely no idea about anything to do with the UK media whatsoever. I must warn you of this - he really doesn't have the first clue, and doesn't care (he "doesn't do evidence"). If I were you I would not bother.



I remember this, he doesn't read links. Yet, without evidence, whatever is said will be nothing more than hearsay or gossip. He's completely ignore the links that I've posted.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 3, 2008)

> You can't claim that established UK media discourse on 'PC' is irrelevant to your own take on it, given the massive similarities in tone you both adopt. Your very use and definition of the term 'political correctness' and your rather wild claim that 'PC' is a 'cancer', is fairly inseperable from mainstream right wing take on the subject in the UK media, whether in the papers (which you say you never see) or among the people who undercritically , undersceptically and over gullibly allow themselves to be influenced by them (people you no doubt would claim not to be influenced by).



Yet, fela would try to claim that he isn't partisan but those who describe themselves thus and spout phrases like "PC gone mad" are the worst offenders.


----------



## fela fan (Sep 3, 2008)

FridgeMagnet said:


> The thing is of course that fela has absolutely no idea about anything to do with the UK media whatsoever. I must warn you of this - he really doesn't have the first clue, and doesn't care (he "doesn't do evidence"). If I were you I would not bother.



"absolutely no idea"... "whatsoever"... good old subjective ranting newspaper language...

It can categorically be seen from this post that the poster is talking somewhat subjectively, and has got it wrong too as i shall now show, with even some beloved evidence some always call for on this forum.

I was born in the UK, and lived there for 27 years until i left my country of birth somewhat accidentally.

I read the papers avidly from about the age of 13 until i left. Mostly i read them every day. For my trips back home in my first ten years of emigrating i always bought papers everyday. I returned after a decade for nearly two years to study, and bought a paper every day.

Furthermore, in the line of my subsequent work, i have several times analysed british newspapers for their language content, most notably for the choice of language and the underlying connotations. My work requires me also to be able to teach the various content and aspects found in both tabloids and broadsheets.

In short i am fully aware of the UK press, their content, and their ability to disseminate propaganda to varying degrees of overtness and covertness.

Approximately five years ago, i finally shook the almost addiction-like need for my daily fix of newspapers. This roughly coincides with my time here on urban.

Fridgemagnet, you are wrong mate, simple as that. You have confused what i know about something with what you think i know about something. 

And just because you don't want to bother interacting with me due to your misinterpretations and biases, why should you be advising others to do the same?


----------



## fela fan (Sep 3, 2008)

William of Walworth said:


> Fair dos ... you're more familiar with his modus operandi on here than I am I should think.



Be careful whose word you take for things WoW. He may be familiar, but that is no by no means an indication of being correct. He used tabloid language to display his totally wrong judgment of my knowledge of the UK press, as i've just shown.

Incidentally, i don't have a 'modus operandi' unless you call posting things as you see them in life one. I have no prior agenda here on urban. I just like to speak and offer my ideas. I also speak what i think, which is non-PC in my understanding of the term...


----------



## fela fan (Sep 3, 2008)

nino_savatte said:


> I remember this, he doesn't read links. Yet, without evidence, whatever is said will be nothing more than hearsay or gossip. He's completely ignore the links that I've posted.



If you had said i 'sometimes' don't read links you'd've been correct in your assertion. As it happens you are incorrect in what you say since i probably read between a third and half of links in threads i'm interested in. Maybe more sometimes. One of the things i've always liked about urban in my six years here is all the interesting links that posters have posted up. I have found many good websites thanks to urban.

So another person wallowing in their own misguided judgments and 'facts' and 'evidence'.

And you bang on here about evidence, yet have managed to state a fact about me with no evidence, and indeed, you were completely wrong.

And as for the links you posted that i have not read, i didn't ignore them, i'm currently in an extremely busy period of time at work, and don't have much brain power left over.

You are a slave to your own prejudices and pre-judgements here nino.


----------



## fela fan (Sep 3, 2008)

nino_savatte said:


> Yet, fela would try to claim that he isn't partisan but those who describe themselves thus and spout phrases like "PC gone mad" are the worst offenders.



Wrong again unsurprisingly. I do not claim to not be partisan, nor would i wish to claim this. I'm partisan like just about everybody else, at least so long as the topics are of a political nature. It's impossible not to be.

I'm not aware of having taken refuge in the term 'PC gone mad', except perhaps with tongue firmly in cheek. That is a term that belongs to the tabloids, and i would never like to find myself in the same camp as them.


----------



## fela fan (Sep 3, 2008)

William of Walworth said:


> For objectivity's sake, it could be useful to hear exactly what examples you mean (you've been VERY vague on detail so far!) *and* what the British Council themselves say about it. Their version, not your summary of it ....



You're suddenly bringing objectivity into the debate? Wow! I think that belongs somewhere else mate. And just how exactly do you suggest i bring here what the BC say about themselves? 

Since you don't want my summary of it, fair enough.

I lived in britain at the time PC was imported there from the campus halls of california, its birth place i believe. My understanding of PC is that certain people impress upon other people that this or that language, this or that word, this or that phrase, is no longer to be used since it will offend this or that person, this or that group of people. They then offer alternative choices for people to start using instead.

At that time of course i was in my avid newspaper reading stage of life. Nowadays i barely look at them, with the exception of my visits back home (I want to see what changes, if any, have occurred), and occasional forays into the electronic versions of the guardian and independent.

And just about every visit back to england (every two to three years), i notice new language being used, and i notice gaps in language previously used in certain contexts. [I have trained myself in the art of noticing language being used in the contexts i hear it being used to help in my line of work.]

It's my opinion that the British Councils around the world are a microcosm of Britain itself, so they're good harbingers of what one should or should not say, and how one should or should not communicate.


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 3, 2008)

*Very rushed this*

What language do you feel you're not allowed to use any more back in the UK? And why do you miss it?

(No time for rest atm)


----------



## fela fan (Sep 3, 2008)

William of Walworth said:


> What language do you feel you're not allowed to use any more back in the UK? And why do you miss it?
> 
> (No time for rest atm)



To be honest mate i don't really want to expand on this, don't really want to go down that road. I get enough jib on this website as it is.

The only time i feel i need to consider what language i'm using is when i get back to the UK. Not just the language, but the choice of topic too. The reasons are down to simple experience in the past. Freedom of speech exists... but within parameters and boundaries that are unconsciously known by everybody, including journalists. PC is one of the tools to keep the free ideas within limits.

Even in this thread i reckon it's more trouble than it's worth to say exactly what i want to say. This is always the way in a british context. 

You always seem a bit rushed! Too much work is not healthy...


----------



## fela fan (Sep 3, 2008)

William of Walworth said:


> What language do you feel you're not allowed to use any more back in the UK? And why do you miss it?
> 
> (No time for rest atm)



I must have been unclear. I don't miss it. I just notice language usage changes. And being away for large periods of time means i'm more likely to notice the changes than someone who grows with them.


----------



## fogbat (Sep 3, 2008)

William of Walworth said:


> What language do you feel you're not allowed to use any more back in the UK? And why do you miss it?
> 
> (No time for rest atm)



No spelling "black" with two "g"s...


----------



## fela fan (Sep 3, 2008)

fogbat said:


> No spelling "black" with two "g"s...



It's obviously a word on your mind not mine. Hmm, insightful that.

I emigrated to a country where white is a rare colour - very few white people and no snow. Colour if of no issue to me, humans are humans.


----------



## Gmart (Sep 3, 2008)

I get the feeling that the 'pc gone mad' argument is resisted because of the people who espouse it.

The neo-cons go on about it, and so every policy they have must be wrong!

In the words of JR Ewing:


> Even a blind dog finds a bone occasionally



And they have stumbled onto a point. that is again not to say that PC should be ignored, just that it is just pretty automatic if you stay open and think. I very rarely get into any trouble over it and I don't think about what is PC or not ever. I just follow logic carefully.

Like with the Elderly sign which is being ignored by the antis atm. I instinctively thought that the charity was right, because it could be viewed as a negative portrayal of the old. Yet ON SECOND THOUGHTS, I realised that this was simplistic, and that in fact the priority must be what the sign is warning against - ie paying attention to the Elderly in the area. So for this message to be communicated the clearest, we have to keep the original sign which is recognised by all drivers and which has been part of the Highway Code for 25 years. Thus the charity needs to recognise this and drop its spurious claim. The sign is only marginally insulting at best and indeed I suspect that the charity has more time than it knows what to do with...


----------



## fela fan (Sep 3, 2008)

But maybe you didn't read my earlier comments that only those who differentiate between different peoples get sucked into PC, ie internal language self-censorship. Why did you not just spell out the word 'nigger' eh fogbat? Why did you hide behind it?

If one fights for human rights, not individual group rights, then there is no need to watch one's language use.

PC is watching out for what you say for fear it might give clues to what you think...


----------



## tarannau (Sep 3, 2008)

So you don't think you could update the sign and still make it recognisable to others then.

Amazing how all those commercial brands manage it eh?

TBH honest GM, you never seem to think before you post. On one hand you say that you can understand why folks may want to change the sign, yet your gut reaction and daft conclusion is telling. 

How long do you think it took the charity to suggest a change of sign. One minute in a meeting and a bullet point on the minutes? You've probably spent as much as your life muttering on about this inconsequential idea, imbuing it with all sorts of significance.


----------



## fela fan (Sep 3, 2008)

Gmarthews said:


> Like with the Elderly sign which is being ignored by the antis atm. I instinctively thought that the charity was right, because it could be viewed as a negative portrayal of the old. Yet ON SECOND THOUGHTS, I realised that this was simplistic, and that in fact the priority must be what the sign is warning against - ie paying attention to the Elderly in the area.



When i saw that sign for the first time, i could not fathom why it was there. After all, don't old codgers just die pretty soon? Surely the sign will outlive the old people and therefore make itself redundant...

Should i have said 'elderly' people...?!


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 3, 2008)

fela fan said:


> Wrong again unsurprisingly. I do not claim to not be partisan, nor would i wish to claim this. I'm partisan like just about everybody else, at least so long as the topics are of a political nature. It's impossible not to be.
> 
> I'm not aware of having taken refuge in the term 'PC gone mad', except perhaps with tongue firmly in cheek. That is a term that belongs to the tabloids, and i would never like to find myself in the same camp as them.



How am I "wrong"? You have taken the side of the right in this; that's pretty partisan to me. Furthermore, the right (as I have already stated) have their own form of Political Correctness and neither you or marthews has commented on this.

I'm not sure what you're saying in your last paragraph.


----------



## fela fan (Sep 3, 2008)

nino_savatte said:


> How am I "wrong"? You have taken the side of the right in this; that's pretty partisan to me. Furthermore, the right (as I have already stated) have their own form of Political Correctness and neither you or marthews has commented on this.
> 
> I'm not sure what you're saying in your last paragraph.



Nino mate, you're wrong because i have not taken the side of the right, and i'm not claiming to not be partisan. That's how you're wrong. You tell me what i have done, but in reality it's not what i've done, just what you have judged me to have done. But your judgment is not right.

It's impossible for me to take the side of the right, i don't know what their side is. I take my own side, i write from my own experiences, not from anybody else's.

In the last paragraph i'm saying that the term 'pc gone mad' has nothing to do with me. I've never used it in a manner of accepting it as natural discourse.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 3, 2008)

fela fan said:


> Nino mate, you're wrong because i have not taken the side of the right, and i'm not claiming to not be partisan. That's how you're wrong. You tell me what i have done, but in reality it's not what i've done, just what you have judged me to have done. But your judgment is not right.
> 
> It's impossible for me to take the side of the right, i don't know what their side is. I take my own side, i write from my own experiences, not from anybody else's.
> 
> In the last paragraph i'm saying that the term 'pc gone mad' has nothing to do with me. I've never used it in a manner of accepting it as natural discourse.



Either you are in denial or you're being deliberately obtuse (or thick or both). Shall I quote your posts for you?

What a weasel.


----------



## fela fan (Sep 4, 2008)

nino_savatte said:


> Either you are in denial or you're being deliberately obtuse (or thick or both). Shall I quote your posts for you?
> 
> What a weasel.



You're wrong on all four counts. None of your four choices (or is it five?) are correct. Whatever you may _think_ i am, you are wrong in this post as in the other one. 

Stop being wrong all the time man!


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Sep 4, 2008)

They said in our PGCE class today that we aren't allowed to use the term "Brainstorm" any more because of PC.  Surely that has to be an example of where it is bona fide 'gone mad' rather than any rational ground?


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 4, 2008)

> In the words of JR Ewing:
> 
> 
> > Quote:
> > Even a blind dog finds a bone occasionally



Is JR Ewing a philosopher?


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 4, 2008)

fela fan said:


> You're wrong on all four counts. None of your four choices (or is it five?) are correct. Whatever you may _think_ i am, you are wrong in this post as in the other one.
> 
> Stop being wrong all the time man!



That's right, wriggle away, maaaaaan. You seem to have difficulty accepting responsibility for your posts to the extent that you have disavowed the contents of those posts where you agree with marthews.

What galls me is the way you read things into my posts. Try reading them again instead of making presumptions.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 4, 2008)

nino_savatte said:


> Here's a selection of self-described anti-PC articles and sites. Can anyone see the common thread running through them?
> 
> This Daily Mail article about Kirklees Council
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-413775/Now-council-bans-use-political-correctness-work.html
> ...



So no comment about any of these articles, fela? No, I didn't think so.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 4, 2008)

fela fan said:


> Indeed.
> 
> I read that the government have banned the use of 'obese' in reports by teachers of children at school. They have to say instead 'over-weight'.
> 
> ...



Here's one of those posts, fela. Here you not only agree with marthews but adopt the same right wing tone regarding "PC". The only people shutting down thinking are those on the right who crap on about "PC".


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 4, 2008)

An example of right wing PC would be the Republican Party in the US accusing the Dems of being "sexist" when they ask questions about Sarah Palin's suitability for office. Odd that. Odd how the Repubs and all right-thinking types hate political correctness but are the first to cry foul when they think they're being 'wronged'.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 4, 2008)

Here's a selection from http://www.capc.co.uk/, which is supported by Anne Widdecombe. Are you a fan of Widdecombe's, fela or are you going to tell me that you've "never heard of her"? 




> I am an Englishman and proud of both England's and Great Britain's achievements as a nation. We have never been perfect but we have always striven to better ourselves as a country and our reputation is typically pretty good (except maybe for football hooligans), however since political correctness crept up on us (laughable issues at first) and taken a foothold (nowadays it's getting serious) I feel that I am discriminated against (both racially and sexually) all in the name of political correctness.  I feel I have to perpetually think very carefully before I speak so as not to offend anyone. If I was looking for a job in the public sector I know that if I am up against someone who looks different to me or is female I probably don't stand a chance even if I am the better suited candidate with more experience or qualifications. That's silent, unrecognised, accepted and legalised discrimination. Could it be any worse?





> We are a nation built on tradition. It defines us. Why should we give it all up? I don't want to give up any of our traditions and don't see why they would be deemed offensive to others. And if they are then they should just live with it. But I suspect virtually nobody does find them offensive or at least didn't until some do-gooder suggested they might be. I don't have an issue with other cultures celebrating theirs but this oppression is making me feel like an alien in my own country.



This last quote is quite revealing. Notice how it opens with the word "tradition", you know what's coming next. Who is the writer referring to?


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 4, 2008)

nino_savatte said:


> The phrase "Political correctness gone mad" is a fig leaf to conceal a range of hidden and not-so-hidden discourses about ethnicity, gender and sexuality. There is also a concomitant desire to roll back the clock to a time when calling a black or Asian person a "darkie" was acceptable and treating women as the inferior sex was the norm.



You missed this, fela...or is it the case that you would support a return to a time when negative ethnic and gender stereotypes formed the bedrock of British comedy?


----------



## fela fan (Sep 4, 2008)

nino_savatte said:


> The only people shutting down thinking are those on the right who crap on about "PC".



I think you ought to realise that the validity of this comment of yours is seriously open to question.

I would think if you actually want to use the terms left and right to describe who is PC, then both kinds of people would provide PC people.

It's not really a left or right issue, except perhaps in your mind. I think anybody is capable of PC. And since i believe i'm correct in stating that PC was born on the campuses of californian universities, then it may well have origins from the left more than the right.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 4, 2008)

fela fan said:


> Jesus god yes. And i don't think that calling such comments as 'irrelevant' actually sums up the context correctly.
> 
> Political correctness is a method of banning language, apparently based on not affecting people's apparent sensitivities.
> 
> The problem with it is that the thinking behind such racist sexist comments does not disappear. So you get a shutdown of language attempted by the PC people, whoever they may be and they're often those with power, yet the desired outcome gets worse if anything.



Another post full of insight and rational analysis. So what you're saying here is that it is acceptable for some people to be called "darkies" or "bum bandits" because you think that to do otherwise would be to "shut down language"? Who are these "people in power" who defend and sanctify PC?

How many people do you refer to using antiquated terminology?


----------



## fela fan (Sep 4, 2008)

nino_savatte said:


> You missed this, fela...or is it the case that you would support a return to a time when negative ethnic and gender stereotypes formed the bedrock of British comedy?



What you ought to more accurately say is not that i 'missed' it, but rather i didn't reply to you on it.

But in your mind either i missed it, and if i happen to not actually have missed it, then you have decided that i want a return to negative ethnic and gender stereotypes in british comedy.

Amazing. Is this not called tautology?

In any case, why are you relating the issue to britain? It's in evidence in many other countries, and in fact emanated from the US.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 4, 2008)

fela fan said:


> I think you ought to realise that the validity of this comment of yours is seriously open to question.
> 
> I would think if you actually want to use the terms left and right to describe who is PC, then both kinds of people would provide PC people.
> 
> It's not really a left or right issue, except perhaps in your mind. I think anybody is capable of PC. And since i believe i'm correct in stating that PC was born on the campuses of californian universities, then it may well have origins from the left more than the right.



You really haven't got a clue what you're talking about and your opening sentence is proof.

Then, in your last paragraph, you come up with a fudge to cover your tracks. Cute but no cigar. Besides, this phrase "p9olitically correct" was invented by the US right to silence/denigrate their critics on the left. I guess you missed that one in favour of pursuing the rightinst line that it "was born on the campuses of californian universities".


----------



## fela fan (Sep 4, 2008)

nino_savatte said:


> Here's a selection from http://www.capc.co.uk/, which is supported by Anne Widdecombe. Are you a fan of Widdecombe's, fela or are you going to tell me that you've "never heard of her"?



So, all you're doing is perpetuating the fact that you have PC related to right wing people, and nobody else is capable of being PC. 

Yes i've heard of her. She inadvertently led the labour government into making possession of cannabis a lesser offence. I loved that at the time. 

Apart from that i don't recall anything good or useful about her. Just a stupid politican, irregardless of whether she was/is right or left or whatever other label you want to pigeonhole people into.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 4, 2008)

fela fan said:


> What you ought to more accurately say is not that i 'missed' it, but rather i didn't reply to you on it.
> 
> But in your mind either i missed it, and if i happen to not actually have missed it, then you have decided that i want a return to negative ethnic and gender stereotypes in british comedy.
> 
> ...



What the fuck are you talking about? Please try and stay focussed.


----------



## fela fan (Sep 4, 2008)

nino_savatte said:


> You really haven't got a clue what you're talking about and your opening sentence is proof.
> 
> Then, in your last paragraph, you come up with a fudge to cover your tracks. Cute but no cigar. Besides, this phrase "p9olitically correct" was invented by the US right to silence/denigrate their critics on the left. I guess you missed that one in favour of pursuing the rightinst line that it "was born on the campuses of californian universities".



You're sounding just like a politician. All those fancy fixed phrases you're using. You're succumbing to PC yourself just right now. Are you on the right of politics?

And you're right about one thing, i don't have any clues about what i'm talking about. I don't need clues to solve what i already know. Clues are only required when looking for answers.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 4, 2008)

fela fan said:


> So, all you're doing is perpetuating the fact that you have PC related to right wing people, and nobody else is capable of being PC.



In a desperate attempt to extricate yourself from the discursive mess that you made for yourself, you throw me this?


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 4, 2008)

fela fan said:


> You're sounding just like a politician. All those fancy fixed phrases you're using. You're succumbing to PC yourself just right now. Are you on the right of politics?
> 
> And you're right about one thing, i don't have any clues about what i'm talking about. I don't need clues to solve what i already know. Clues are only required when looking for answers.



That's right, be evasive. You can't deal with the points that have been raised so you accuse me of being "right wing"? 

What drugs are you on, fela? Because I want to know how to avoid them.


----------



## fela fan (Sep 4, 2008)

nino_savatte said:


> What the fuck are you talking about? Please try and stay focussed.



ha ha.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 4, 2008)

Yes indeed, he wriggles again.


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Oct 20, 2008)

I;ve just heard a trailer on Radio4 for a prog thats on tomorrow at 9.00am called PC RIP?

Clive Anderson is presenting, and I'm sure the list of contributors included Stewart Lee and Jim Davidson. I first thought it would be some kind of panel discussion, but now I'm guessing it's going to be clips etc. Still, worth a listen I reckon.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 20, 2008)

King Biscuit Time said:


> I;ve just heard a trailer on Radio4 for a prog thats on tomorrow at 9.00am called PC RIP?
> 
> Clive Anderson is presenting, and I'm sure the list of contributors included Stewart Lee and Jim Davidson. I first thought it would be some kind of panel discussion, but now I'm guessing it's going to be clips etc. Still, worth a listen I reckon.



I profoundly disagree with your last sentence. They've been trailing it all weekend and to me it sounds _appalling_, like some extended edition of the Moral Maze.


----------

