Political Correctness

  • Thread starter lbsf1
  • 2,919 comments
  • 170,475 views
I hated my participation trophy I got once at a football camp. Just reminded me I wasn't good enough to get a real trophy! Saying that it was an incentive to work harder....
 
Double post on the phone; please merge.

Only silly Warriors fans still want to tout that achievement but not even the team really cares because it didn't amount to anything in the end. You guys can keep pretending most professional sports achievements are still memorable without titles/rings behind them. The fact is, at the end of the day, only the diehard sports fan cares. People remember Michael, hardly anyone knows who Stockton is or what he's famous for.

That's called media bias. And yeah, if you want to write off anyone who thinks that winning 73 out of 82 games in a season is pretty good as "silly" then you can dismiss basically anything.

Not going to entertain the rest of the post trying to ride the coat tails of Scaff's.

Have you noticed how much you simply avoid giving any answers at all?
 
I hated my participation trophy I got once at a football camp. Just reminded me I wasn't good enough to get a real trophy! Saying that it was an incentive to work harder....
Which is part of the reason why they can be effective.

Do participation medals have anything to do with political correctness?
Some think so, others don't.

What they aren't is either a new concept or a scientificly invalid method of motivation.
 
Which is part of the reason why they can be effective.

Some think so, others don't.

What they aren't is either a new concept or a scientificly invalid method of motivation.

I think you'll need more than that Huffington Post article to make this assertion.
 
I think you will find the hufpo article cite and links to the papers that do that.

Not that I can see, their link to the study takes you to a Chicago Tribune article who seem to have no links, and that ignores the fact that the study only loosely supports the assertion that participation trophies are a scientifically valid method of motivation.
 
Not that I can see, their link to the study takes you to a Chicago Tribune article who seem to have no links, and that ignores the fact that the study only loosely supports the assertion that participation trophies are a scientifically valid method of motivation.
My apologies here's the original study.

https://psychology.stanford.edu/sit...an Undermine Motivation and Performance_0.pdf

And no it doesn't only loosely support it and I can provide many more if you wish. The use of tools to improve participation and success in education and sport is something both my wife and I have a professional interest in, so would be quite happy to do so.

The study above (and the others I will happily provide) do however make it clear that a right and a wrong way to do it exists, as is the case with almost everything in life.

They are not a 'magic bullet' and are more effective with younger children, should not be signposted up front, should still require a minimum level of participation, and should focus on the effort put into participation, what was done well and what was learnt.

They also need to be used in conjunction with further awards that do reward results and exemplary performance.
 
The following ad was deemed "inappropriate" (code word for politically incorrect IMO) for French television. Watch it and see if you can figure out why it's inappropriate for French television before going further in this thread or looking up the answer on the internetz or looking at a link to the story below.


http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/n...-showing-happy-kids-with-down-syndrome-58702/
In its reasoning, it pointed out that the happiness of the children shown in the video was “likely to disturb the conscience of women who had lawfully made different personal life choices.”
 
Is it because none of those kids are pretty enough to be allowed on TV?

Wow, I guess that's subjective.

The following ad was deemed "inappropriate" (code word for politically incorrect IMO) for French television. Watch it and see if you can figure out why it's inappropriate for French television before going further in this thread or looking up the answer on the internetz or looking at a link to the story below.

It was banned because abortion is a life choice (often in difficult circumstances) that shouldn't be disturbed by media advertising. I can't believe you agree that pro-abortion or anti-abortion videos should be shown on the TV? None of their business, it's up to the body owner to make a decision.
 
1081
It was banned because abortion is a life choice (often in difficult circumstances) that shouldn't be disturbed by media advertising. I can't believe you agree that pro-abortion or anti-abortion videos should be shown on the TV? None of their business, it's up to the body owner to make a decision.
It's not a anti-abortion video, it's a pro-Down's syndrome video and frankly I think they need it given some of the ghoulish comments on this article:

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeand...world-without-downs-syndrome-ds-prenatal-test

Because of this new test people are able to diagnose it with much more accuracy, and this has led people to say we can "cure" Down's - i.e. terminate every pregnancy found to have the disease. Some posters believe you are selfish if you take a Down's baby to term following diagnosis. If medicine evolves in such a way that we can prenatally diagnose many genetic diseases/genetically associated before a cure is available (before anyone says it, yes I am aware there is no cure for chromosomal diseases like Down's), where do we draw the line. Say we come out with a prenatal test for epileptics, should we start aborting those? The ad isn't berating those who go down the abortion route - it's showing what a Down's child can do (admittedly only the positive aspects) so that a presumptive parent can make an informed choice. I doubt anyone is going to take a look of the ad only without researching the numerous challenges of raising a Down's child.

And besides, if we give up on treating/coping with disease we don't get uplifting stories like Congresswoman Beutler's daughter:

http://koin.com/2016/05/23/herrera-beutler-family-heartbreak-hope-and-joy/
 
It was banned because abortion is a life choice (often in difficult circumstances) that shouldn't be disturbed by media advertising. I can't believe you agree that pro-abortion or anti-abortion videos should be shown on the TV? None of their business, it's up to the body owner to make a decision.
So we shouldn't allow anything on tv that disturbs our life choices or just for abortion? How far do you go? No ads about any babies then? It might disturb mothers who aborted healthy babies. No ads for suicide prevention? Might make those making the life choice to end their life feel bad. No ads against unprotected sex in case the drunken clubbers have second thoughts and feel guilty? Since when is anything on tv anyone's "business"? It's generic programming that appeals to some and not others. Abortion is legal, so is advocating against it. It's an ad, change the channel if you don't like it, same as the rest of us.

http://www.breitbart.com/national-s...sts-new-french-abortion-law-total-censorship/
The French government has doubled down on enforcing political correctness and it's now going to be a crime to have a website that is, "intimidating and/or exerting psychological or moral pressure”, on women who have had or are considering having an abortion, and, presumably, men involved with women who have had their babies aborted as well. In other words, don't make the aborters feel bad or you go to jail or pay a fine.
 
Last edited:
So we shouldn't allow anything on tv that disturbs our life choices or just for abortion?

I haven't considered the first but I've made my position clear on abortion adverts.

No ads for suicide prevention?

Nope.

No ads against unprotected sex in case the drunken clubbers have second thoughts and feel guilty?

Nope.

Advertising sources of advice is one thing, advocating particular choices is another.


Le Pen and Breitbart? How odd that they're strongly against a law that protects truth over hyperbole.

The French government has doubled down on enforcing political correctness and it's now going to be a crime to have a website that is, "intimidating and/or exerting psychological or moral pressure

No it isn't, and that's because you deliberately misquoted. Why did you miss out the words "misleading" and "false", I wonder?
 
My apologies here's the original study.

https://psychology.stanford.edu/sites/all/files/Intelligence Praise Can Undermine Motivation and Performance_0.pdf

And no it doesn't only loosely support it and I can provide many more if you wish. The use of tools to improve participation and success in education and sport is something both my wife and I have a professional interest in, so would be quite happy to do so.

The study above (and the others I will happily provide) do however make it clear that a right and a wrong way to do it exists, as is the case with almost everything in life.

They are not a 'magic bullet' and are more effective with younger children, should not be signposted up front, should still require a minimum level of participation, and should focus on the effort put into participation, what was done well and what was learnt.

They also need to be used in conjunction with further awards that do reward results and exemplary performance.

I said the study loosely supports your assertion because rewarding effort and participation aren't exactly the same thing, but you've clarified your point in the last couple of paragraphs. 👍
 
Yes, it is. The purpose is to dissuade mothers with a positive DS test from aborting.

No, it isn't. It's reassuring expecting mothers that a child with Down's can live a happy life — which is a direct response to the question posed at the beginning.

Is there pro-life subtext? Maybe. But it's certainly not a pro-life ad.
 
No, it isn't. It's reassuring expecting mothers that a child with Down's can live a happy life — which is a direct response to the question posed at the beginning.

Is there pro-life subtext? Maybe. But it's certainly not a pro-life ad.

I continue to disagree. Regardless of Coordown's own statement that it "wasn't the intention to make a pro-life video" it clearly stands as a pro-life message when aimed at mothers who've had a positive DS test - a scenario which returns a 90% abortion rate.

Even if there's ambiguity about how much of a pro-life message there is or isn't... that's enough to make it unsuitable for general advertising release, imo.
 
I continue to disagree. Regardless of Coordown's own statement that it "wasn't the intention to make a pro-life video" it clearly stands as a pro-life message when aimed at mothers who've had a positive DS test - a scenario which returns a 90% abortion rate.

Even if there's ambiguity about how much of a pro-life message there is or isn't... that's enough to make it unsuitable for general advertising release, imo.
Whiiiich is why JP is concerned about the French ruling on censoring websites. You decided the ad was pro-life despite the creator's actual intentions (your link doesn't make sense, but I found out they are a Down's syndrome advocacy group). You decided it should be banned because of your conclusions. Imagine a government having that power.

People talk of Le Pen and the far Right, but seriously if this is the alternative can you blame people not wanting to drink the kool aid. Don't forget that we actually have had pro abortion ads, ironically by the foundation named after a eugenecist.



I think I'm going to decide that those people who have "baby on board" badges on the tube are rubbing it in the face of people who've had abortions. After all - they aren't babies yet.

No, it isn't. It's reassuring expecting mothers that a child with Down's can live a happy life — which is a direct response to the question posed at the beginning.

Is there pro-life subtext? Maybe. But it's certainly not a pro-life ad.
Which was likely the creator's intentions funnily enough.
 
I can see myself finding that ad extremely distressing if I had been through the abortion of a Down's child. I don't know if that's enough to say that it shouldn't be aired, but I'd actually turn the tables in a political correctness sense, and suggest that the idea that we should choose to sustain Down's in the human race denotes political correctness. There's no good to come of it, and we should get rid of as much of it as possible. Sure, one could argue "Yeah, but then our beautiful cousin Downy McDownface wouldn't exist". To which I would counter "What about all the other humans we're not currently creating?". "What magnificent beings are we missing out on by not all being permanently knocked up?". It's just touchy-feely, romanticised nonsense.

Down's Syndrome ruins lives. You want inspiration? Start a crowd funding campaign to get Ben Stiller to do the full length film version of Simple Jack.

*Note, I realise that people questioning the ban on the ad don't necessarily support the non-abortion of Down's babies.
 
I continue to disagree. Regardless of Coordown's own statement that it "wasn't the intention to make a pro-life video" it clearly stands as a pro-life message when aimed at mothers who've had a positive DS test - a scenario which returns a 90% abortion rate.

Even if there's ambiguity about how much of a pro-life message there is or isn't... that's enough to make it unsuitable for general advertising release, imo.

You can argue that all you want, but the creator and the context of the video says otherwise and realistically since you have no ability to prove what the true intent is, taking his word is all you can do. The fact you make a statement that comes to a conclusion of your own preference, and is okay with giving Governments that ability too is a dangerous game.

Also because there is even a 1% chance that is taking a political side rather than an informative health message, it deserves to not be shown. People really need help...cause if you can't look the realities of this stuff in the face despite the true message, then why bother getting up every day and joining the real world...
 
All I'll say is not everyone can afford the additional cost of a special needs child. Yes they can be adopted but not everyone gets adopted, especially special needs children. It is a sad subject to talk about but it is real.
 
No it isn't, and that's because you deliberately misquoted. Why did you miss out the words "misleading" and "false", I wonder?
Because it's common sense that any advertising that is deliberately misleading and false is an offense and there are already laws on the books for that, therefore it's irrelevant because no one would expect anything different. The key part is the part that comes after the comma, and the "and/or" part, which literally means, it doesn't need to be misleading and false to be an offense, only that is must, "exert[ing] psychological or moral pressure", to be illegal.
 
All I'll say is not everyone can afford the additional cost of a special needs child. Yes they can be adopted but not everyone gets adopted, especially special needs children. It is a sad subject to talk about but it is real.

They get adopted a lot more than you think.
 
f3b4eb64559f49f1b500f46901804827.jpg


Lets just say them southern folk didn't think it was politically correct.
 
I can see myself finding that ad extremely distressing if I had been through the abortion of a Down's child.
I'm sure it would be. Equally it would be extremely uplifting for parents of Down's kids and Down's sufferers. I counter your turning the table by asking you to imagine how they feel seeing an ad showing their happiness being banned! :sly:

LMA
I don't know if that's enough to say that it shouldn't be aired, but I'd actually turn the tables in a political correctness sense, and suggest that the idea that we should choose to sustain Down's in the human race denotes political correctness. There's no good to come of it, and we should get rid of as much of it as possible. Sure, one could argue "Yeah, but then our beautiful cousin Downy McDownface wouldn't exist". To which I would counter "What about all the other humans we're not currently creating?". "What magnificent beings are we missing out on by not all being permanently knocked up?". It's just touchy-feely, romanticised nonsense.
The thing is Down's sufferers can be magnificent beings too, it all depends on your criteria for being "magnificent". Again if it's to do with disease we can go a lot further.

LMA
*Note, I realise that people questioning the ban on the ad don't necessarily support the non-abortion of Down's babies.
Ideally it wouldn't be relevant to the view on if the ad should air. For instance I don't support the banning of the Marie Stopes ad. I'd change it to include a man in one of the scenarios but that's it. As for my opinion on aborting/non-aborting Down's, I don't know what I'd do if I found out I was going to have a Down's baby. That's why I'd appreciate ads like this, and facts like quality of life of Down's sufferers.
 
If that add offends someone who made the choice to not keep their baby because of downs than they probably made the wrong choice. Its not a right to not be reminded of choices you make in life.
 
Back