Political Correctness

[huskeR32]

Should be said that this isn't as concrete as the grooming gangs example

As an observer of your attempts to get us all outraged about that, I’d have to say that one wasn’t all that concrete either. But kudos, I guess, for now trying to act like your opinion on it has somehow become established fact.

 

[HenrySwanson]

As an observer of your attempts to get us all outraged about that, I’d have to say that one wasn’t all that concrete either. But kudos, I guess, for now trying to act like your opinion on it has somehow become established fact.

Dude, the argument against it was against the literal definition of political correctness. I'm not sure how else I could prove political correctness was a factor, or is the onus on me to convince you of the suitability of the definition?

Positive interaction with statues? You mean like this?

Sure, could be. Depends on the person.

Erosion of cultural heritage? That's so incredibly vague. Do you think that statues establish this "cultural heritage"? And must they be displayed in certain locations to establish it? And what exactly is the cultural heritage established by which statue? And is it worth preserving? And at what cost?

I think statues are a part of it and promote a country/city/town's heritage. You can't overlook their symbolism as well (which, granted, could be negatively interpreted).

 

[TenEightyOne]

I guess that comes back round to the question of what the harm is in removing statues.

They aren't removed though, they're just moved.

I posted earlier about how this can remove the chance to have positive interactions with them

There are millions of dis-located memorial items that receive positive interactions from audiences every day. That's how museums and exhibitions work.

maybe the erosion of cultural heritage is more relevant?

It's not in the least relevant. The movement of a statue is not the erosion of cultural heritage. Saying "you must speak this language" or "you may not wear those clothes" would be good examples of cultural erosion.

 

[Danoff]

I think statues are a part of it and promote a country/city/town's heritage. You can't overlook their symbolism as well (which, granted, could be negatively interpreted).

If it's being misinterpreted, it's not serving that purpose.

 

[HenrySwanson]

They aren't removed though, they're just moved.

Removed from the public square. A museum is an entirely different place from the street.

There are millions of dis-located memorial items that receive positive interactions from audiences every day. That's how museums and exhibitions work.

It's a question of frequency/opportunity.

It's not in the least relevant. The movement of a statue is not the erosion of cultural heritage. Saying "you must speak this language" or "you may not wear those clothes" would be good examples of cultural erosion.

Of course it's relevant. If we moved all statues of people from say, pre-1950 would there not be a dent in the cultural heritage of the area?

If it's being misinterpreted, it's not serving that purpose.

I dunno, would any statue pass that test?

Consider the replacement statue erected (illegally) in Bristol. It was only up for a matter of hours before this happened:

--------------

This is, uh, interesting.

 

[Danoff]

I dunno, would any statue pass that test?

Yes. But if there weren't, that wouldn't change anything. It would just make a case for not putting any statues in public squares.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Of course it's relevant. If we moved all statues of people from say, pre-1950 would there not be a dent in the cultural heritage of the area?

No. Emptiness can be of as much cultural significance as tangibly-occupied space.

 

[HenrySwanson]

No. Emptiness can be of as much cultural significance as tangibly-occupied space.

Can you explain?

 

[UKMikey]

Can you explain?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_plinth,_Trafalgar_Square

 

[TenEightyOne]

Schmidt, oft-quoted by Holtorf, said "The most monumental remnant of the border is probably the vacuum it has left behind, visible and palpable over long stretches: the emptiness produced by its demolition ... Therefore even an emptiness can claim to be ... a site of cultural significance". Space, absence, intangible delineation of air, it's still part of cultural heritage. Things that are, things that were, things that were only ever really imagined.

EDIT: Here's "Can Less Be More?" by Holtorf, well worth a read.

 

[HenrySwanson]

So there are 2 stories making the rounds in Britain that are interesting:

Spitting Image wrestles with race riddle

Roger Law, the format’s co-creator, has promised that the new version will be “more outrageous, audacious and salacious” than the original, which ran for 18 series in the Eighties and Nineties, skewering politicians including Margaret Thatcher, John Major and Ronald Reagan. Preparations have been complicated by the Black Lives Matter movement, which has led to a reassessment of how black people are portrayed, particularly in comedy.

“I had a curious meeting with Spitting Image,” said Kevin Lygo, ITV’s director of television. “The producers called me and said we need a conversation. We discussed with the writer and the producers about how to portray black people as viciously caricatured puppets. What’s OK, what’s not OK?”

He added: “Should only a black actor voice a black character? So if you’ve got Kanye West as a puppet, does it, should it, must it be a black person? Should only black writers write for black puppets?”

BBC considers dropping Rule Britannia from Last Night of the Proms

The traditional flag-waving anthems Rule Britannia and Land of Hope of Glory could be dropped from the Last Night of the Proms because of their perceived links with colonialism and slavery.

The BBC is reportedly considering whether to axe the patriotic staples in the wake of the Black Lives Matter protests, and the Covid restrictions are seen as an opportunity to make the change.

Reduced orchestra sizes, social distancing and no audiences make the 2020 Proms a very different experience from past years.

The final concert will be conducted by Dalia Stasevska, 35, from Finland, only the second female conductor to preside over the Last Night of the Proms.

“Dalia is a big supporter of Black Lives Matter and thinks a ceremony without an audience is the perfect moment to bring change,” a BBC source told the Sunday Times.

* I figure this is the place to put it since the statue removal discussion ended up here.

** I know we've done Apu, but does that mean this guy is in the crosshairs too?

 

[HenrySwanson]

This is getting ridiculous now

The national inquiry into child abuse refused to investigate Britain’s most notorious sex-grooming scandals and barred key witnesses from giving evidence, it has been revealed.

Victims and experts blamed the decision not to examine mass offending in Rotherham and Rochdale on a “cowardly” reluctance to look at a pattern of group crimes in which men of Pakistani heritage have been over-represented.

Those dismayed by the public inquiry’s failure to hear their evidence include Sarah Champion, the campaigning Rotherham MP, and Nazir Afzal, a former chief crown prosecutor who brought to justice the Rochdale sex-grooming gang.

Maggie Oliver, a former Greater Manchester police officer who exposed the alleged cover-up of sex-grooming crimes in the region, accused the inquiry of being “too frightened to open the hornet’s nest”.

Sammy Woodhouse, a Rotherham victim, claimed that those running the statutory inquiry, which began in 2015 and has cost £143 million so far, “have not placed survivors at the forefront” and are “selective in what they decide to look at”. She added: “If you are going to get to the root of gang-related child sexual exploitation you need to go right to the heart of it. They are trying to bury what happened in places like Rotherham and Rochdale because they’re scared of being called racist.”

The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA), which is seeking to establish “what went wrong and why” in relation to past “institutional failure to protect children” from abuse, is investigating child sexual exploitation by “organised networks”.

Earlier parts of the inquiry, which have looked at institutions including the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church, focused on many of the worst-known scandals involving such organisations. It was anticipated that the organised networks strand of the inquiry would examine the most infamous examples of group grooming and exploitation.

Over the past decade, big trials have exposed a previously hidden crime model that involves the systematic targeting and sexual abuse of teenage girls by groups of men who were largely of south Asian origin.

Since 2011, groups have been prosecuted for sex-grooming in towns including Rochdale, Rotherham, Oxford, Telford, Burnley, High Wycombe, Leicester, Dewsbury, Peterborough, Halifax and Newcastle upon Tyne.

The IICSA held two weeks of public hearings for its “organised networks” investigation from late September, and a final day for closing submissions is due to take place on Thursday. It decided to hear no evidence from survivors or those with expert knowledge of the crime pattern.

The inquiry chose instead to select six areas of England and Wales: St Helens, Tower Hamlets in east London, Swansea, Durham, Bristol and Warwickshire “because they represent a range of sizes, demographics and institutional practices”. None of the six has witnessed a major prosecution of a south Asian sex-grooming gang. In all six areas, according to the 2011 national census, the proportion of the population that is of Pakistani origin is lower than the national average.

Another blow for the victims and campaigners.

We've also seen how a security guard avoided taking further action against the individual responsible for the Manchester Arena bombing because he feared "being called racist".

 

[TenEightyOne]

It's taken some time but the report is out: no proof of links between ethnic origin and the likelihood of partaking in gang-based child grooming. Some ethnicities are statistically over-represented in some areas, this isn't borne out in others. Turns out that you can find people committing paedophilic crimes against young people anywhere.

 

[UKMikey]

It's taken some time but the report is out: no proof of links between ethnic origin and the likelihood of partaking in gang-based child grooming. Some ethnicities are statistically over-represented in some areas, this isn't borne out in others. Turns out that you can find people committing paedophilic crimes against young people anywhere.

Wait for it... "They're just saying that to be politically correct"...

 

[HenrySwanson]

It's taken some time but the report is out: no proof of links between ethnic origin and the likelihood of partaking in gang-based child grooming. Some ethnicities are statistically over-represented in some areas, this isn't borne out in others. Turns out that you can find people committing paedophilic crimes against young people anywhere.

It's more that the data isn't good enough to come to firm conclusions. The papers cited and the preliminary research done by the group found Black and Asian offenders were over-represented nationally but there were severe limitations because of various factors meaning they should be approached with extreme caution. It's the reason Priti Patel in the forward of the report said that there will be a push for better recording in these types of cases in the future.

Wait for it... "They're just saying that to be politically correct"...

No, see above.

The findings don't negate the instances of political correctness that have been proven to have occurred in response to certain grooming gangs found in my previous posts, or in other examples such as this

 

[TenEightyOne]

It's more that the data isn't good enough to come to firm conclusions.

So you didn't have the proof earlier?

The findings don't negate the instances of political correctness that have been proven to have occurred in response to certain grooming gangs found in my previous posts,

Nope, the proof was going to be in a published report. Remember?

 

[HenrySwanson]

So you didn't have the proof earlier?

Proof of what?

Nope, the proof was going to be in a published report. Remember?

Proof of what?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Now here's something interesting at last, maybe.

Footballist Edinson Cavani used a Spanish word on that there Twitter which is highly offensive in some parts of the Spanish-speaking world, but seemingly acceptable in others. The FA have taken action against him, something which he's accepted. The United team says that Cavani accepted the FA's censure "out of respect for, and solidarity with" the FA's anti-racism campaigning.

However, the Uruguayan Footballing Association are very unhappy and say that in some Spanish-speaking cultures the word also has a familiar, friendly meaning and can be used as a term of affection. It's reminiscent of sub-cultural uses of the N word, but in this case it might not be as easy to identify cultural or social "rights" to a particular piece or use of language.

Thoughts?

Language-safe BBC link

Spoiler

Possible Language Warning: SportDW link about a similar saga some years earlier

 

[Liquid]

"Oh but we say that where I'm from so it's okay". Yeah, but I know people who say ching chong, raghead and paki and it's more than accepted amongst their communities. Doesn't make it right.

Simple fact is, the Football Association is a private entity, free to impose whatever rules it wants on its members, and by extended association, their players. Don't like it? Don't play for FA member clubs or in FA-sanctioned competitions.

 

[TenEightyOne]

"Oh but we say that where I'm from so it's okay". Yeah, but I know people who say ching chong, raghead and paki and it's more than accepted amongst their communities. Doesn't make it right.

I completely agree with your point about the FA, but playing devil's advocate... let's go back to the n-word comparison, a case where the perjorative has been reclaimed by the people who it was used against. Is it right for "them"? Can it be "right" for some people and not others? What if the word was "right" somewhere before it was "wrong" somewhere else?

 

[HenrySwanson]

Now here's something interesting at last, maybe.

I completely agree with your point about the FA, but playing devil's advocate... let's go back to the n-word comparison, a case where the perjorative has been reclaimed by the people who it was used against. Is it right for "them"? Can it be "right" for some people and not others? What if the word was "right" somewhere before it was "wrong" somewhere else?

That's the problem when you try to police language - a problem which is made even worse when it's not your native tongue/culture.

 

[UKMikey]

let's go back to the n-word comparison, a case where the perjorative has been reclaimed by the people who it was used against.

Not all of us.

That's the problem when you try to police language - a problem which is made even worse when it's not your native tongue/culture

Sounds to me like it's behaviour that they're tring to police, not "language". And a possible answer is to consult or recruit speakers of that native tongue/members of that culture.

One of my posts was censored by a moderator last week for quoting a tweet which used a word that's considered relatively harmless in my part of the world but highly offensive in other parts of my country - something that I wasn't aware of until after the fact as it escaped the swear filter.

GTP staff evidently thought it best to err on the side of caution; clearly the FA felt similarly. The alternative is to ignore the problem and send out the message that it's irrelevant.

 

[VBR]

What does it mean to be "woke"

This tweet from a British broadcaster about a campaign to boycott would be advertisers from his yet to be launched news channel made me think what being woke actually is.



If you listen to right leaning individuals then it's everything wrong with the world today and the expression of the worst aspects of the modern left. Listen to those on the left and it's nothing more than its dictionary definition of being against racism/sexism etc and the pushback from people is because of their inherent bigotry.

Where does the truth lie?.

I think that being 'Woke' refers to those who view the world through a 'critical lens', i.e. using Critical Theory. They claim to have 'critical consciousness', as opposed to everyone else who apparently has 'false consciousness'. These ideas, as well as what's commonly referred to as 'Political Correctness' & 'Cancel Culture', etc, are IMHO merely modern manifestations of the following antiquated ideas...


"Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left. As to the scope of this tolerance and intolerance: ... it would extend to the stage of action as well as of discussion and propaganda, of deed as well as of word. The traditional criterion of clear and present danger seems no longer adequate...It is a situation in which the total catastrophe could be triggered off any moment...In past and different circumstances, the speeches of the Fascist and Nazi leaders were the immediate prologue to the massacre...But the spreading of the word could have been stopped before it was too late: if democratic tolerance had been withdrawn when the future leaders started their campaign, mankind would have had a chance of avoiding Auschwitz and a World War.

The whole post-fascist period is one of clear and present danger. Consequently, true pacification requires the withdrawal of tolerance before the deed, at the stage of communication in word, print, and picture. Such extreme suspension of the right of free speech and free assembly is indeed justified only if the whole of society is in extreme danger. I maintain that our society is in such an emergency situation, and that it has become the normal state of affairs...In this society...the false consciousness has become the general consciousness--from the government down to its last objects. The small and powerless minorities which struggle against the false consciousness and its beneficiaries must be helped: their continued existence is more important than the preservation of abused rights and liberties which grant constitutional powers to those who oppress these minorities. It should be evident by now that the exercise of civil rights by those who don't have them presupposes the withdrawal of civil rights from those who prevent their exercise, and that liberation of the Damned of the Earth presupposes suppression not only of their old but also of their new masters.

Withdrawal of tolerance from regressive movements before they can become active; intolerance even toward thought, opinion, and word, and finally, intolerance in the opposite direction, that is, toward the self-styled conservatives, to the political Right..."


An extract from Repressive Tolerance by Herbert Marcuse. https://www.marcuse.org/herbert/publications/1960s/1965-repressive-tolerance-fulltext.html

Spoiler

 

[Scaff]

I think that being 'Woke' refers to those who view the world through a 'critical lens', i.e. using Critical Theory. They claim to have 'critical consciousness', as opposed to everyone else who apparently has 'false consciousness'. These ideas, as well as what's commonly referred to as 'Political Correctness' & 'Cancel Culture', etc, are IMHO merely modern manifestations of the following antiquated ideas...

Nope

Political Correctness is basically not being a dick to people, you're still free to do so. As for 'Cancel Culture' it's about the most basic concept of capitalism, don't like something or someone's views, don't support them, don't buy their products etc. As long as it's not a government closing down what they are saying I see zero reasons to object, and I certainly don't recall it being a problem when the right was boycotting cooler boxes and Nike products or demanding the right to not make cakes for gay people!

Once again its a complaint about wanting freedom from consequences dressed up in a new frock.

Mild rude words warning

Spoiler

 

[UKMikey]

Nope

Political Correctness is basically not being a dick to people, you're still free to do so. As for 'Cancel Culture' it's about the most basic concept of capitalism, don't like something or someone's views, don't support them, don't buy their products etc. As long as it's not a government closing down what they are saying I see zero reasons to object, and I certainly don't recall it being a problem when the right was boycotting cooler boxes and Nike products or demanding the right to not make cakes for gay people!

Once again its a complaint about wanting freedom from consequences dressed up in a new frock.

Mild rude words warning

Spoiler

View attachment 990508

Oh, come on, @Scaff, that's hardly a fair comparison.

If it's suggestive lyrics, godless movies, violent video games or baby-killing "planned parenthood" clinics that are being deplatformed, then it's patriotic, right-thinking real Americans exercising their G*d-given 1st Amendment rights to free speech.

If it's racists, rapists, homophobes or conspiracy theorists that are being shut down... well, then it's communist, wokeist, critical race theory cancel culture.

Because it's only wokeism if it affects something the right supports.

 

[longshot1314]

Political correctness fundamentally is at least by default it means treating people, races, cultures, etc respectfully and refraining from using personal attacks, racism, harassments etc in interactions. It does not mean that someone's views or feelings are immune to being challenged or criticized, just that if someone is going to levy criticism or challenge that they do so in a means that is ultimately respectful of the other person or group. Unfortunately in recent times with upswing of identity politics this has gone from 'treat people and groups with respect' to 'anyone who challenges my feelings, opinions, or ideas is the worst common denominator of my opposition.' This is something that in recent years both sides have been guilty of. Cancel Culture has always been a part of political correctness which is why it's becoming problematic given that the needle has been moving towards silencing any opposition as opposed to extremism and can certainly be abused on those grounds alone.

 

[Scaff]

Political correctness fundamentally is at least by default it means treating people, races, cultures, etc respectfully and refraining from using personal attacks, racism, harassments etc in interactions. It does not mean that someone's views or feelings are immune to being challenged or criticized, just that if someone is going to levy criticism or challenge that they do so in a means that is ultimately respectful of the other person or group. Unfortunately in recent times with upswing of identity politics this has gone from 'treat people and groups with respect' to 'anyone who challenges my feelings, opinions, or ideas is the worst common denominator of my opposition.' This is something that in recent years both sides have been guilty of. Cancel Culture has always been a part of political correctness which is why it's becoming problematic given that the needle has been moving towards silencing any opposition as opposed to extremism and can certainly be abused on those grounds alone.

The only group that can silence people is the government, and I'm not aware of that happening right now (the last administration was starting to have a go with the 1776 project).

Outside of that why should people or businesses not be able to choose who they associate with, do business with, etc?

Let's not forget that a lot of this claimed 'Cancel Culture' is nothing of the sort, take this example...

...worn while giving a speech on the House floor which was broadcast live on C-SPAN and across numerous news networks, it's quite frankly amazing how many people are complaining that 'Cancel Culture' is being used to shut their voices down, and doing so live on national and international news network shows! You're not exactly being censored or cancelled if you are being broadcast internationally or nationally!

I don't buy products from certain companies and brands based on the political stance (or other social stance) they take, do you propose forcing me to do so? Now extend that to businesses, why should a retailer be forced to stock products from a brand that they, as a business, do not want to be associated with? Is a vegetarian healthfood shop engaging in 'Cancel Culture' if they refuse to stock meat products? I would be very surprised if you answered yes to these questions.

That same argument extends regardless of the size of a business, up to and including Facebook, Twitter, etc. now you can argue that these businesses are too big and represent a monopoly, but that's quite a different argument. However none of them is required to allow membership to anyone and all of them are free to remove membership from any group, body or individual that they wish to (and they don't actually have to give a reason). The same extends to TV channels, News Stations, Newspapers, book publishers, etc. Unless they are government-owned (in part or in full) then they are not engaged in 'Cancel Culture'.

People, organisations, individually are perfectly free to say what they hell they like, and we, as a society are perfectly free to show them the damn door if we don't agree. Freedom of speech neither guarantees you an audience nor provides you with freedom of consequences. A person is free to be an utter wingnut, racist, conspiracy-theory loving loon, and free to expose those views, that doesn't protect them from being fired, denied service, and avoided by people that used to associate with them. To argue otherwise is to try and provide rights the loon doesn't have at the expense of the rights the others do have.

Pretty much every claimed example of 'Cancel Culture' I have seen (ever) actually boils down to people having to simply face the consequences of exercising free speech that others don't agree with.

You want an example of real Cancel Culture, take Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988, which was thankfully fully repealed by 2003. Which, and I quote...

that a local authority "shall not intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality" or "promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship"

...Twitter banning Trump is not Cancel Culture, nor are store not stocking the mad Pillow blokes products (to cite two recently claimed examples), however, a Government making the discussion of an entire sexual orientation illegal in schools, colleges and any other government-provided service is. The first two (Trump and Pillow) are simply a result of the consequence of actions, the last is a denial of rights and an abuse of power.

 

[Danoff]

 

[Joey D]

Being "woke" is what happens when I drink one too many Red Bulls.

Cancel Culture is when people on the right get butt hurt because the free market, something they supposedly champion, takes over.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Nope

Political Correctness is basically not being a dick to people, you're still free to do so.

But wait. The definition is, if Google is acceptable:

the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against.

That does cover "not being a dick to people", but it also covers cases where serious harm has resulted, as in the case of the security guard being afraid of racism and so not challenging someone who turned out to be a suicide bomber or the police/authority response in certain jurisdictions to grooming gangs. It could also be argued those against stop and search disproportionatly targeting black males in London are being politically correct (which isn't the same argument as "does stop and search reduce crime"),

Wokeism, as far as I've just researched today seems to be defined more by activism (at least, according to wikipedia). So woke may include such things as BLM and promoting the boycott of advertisers to a station not deemed acceptable.

So I can see why the thread was closed as they are similar, but I think they may be different.