Political Correctness

[UKMikey]

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")

Although that argument would suggest that you can't begin to answer that question without being "politically correct". Speaking as a black male living in London, I'd prefer coppers to leave me alone if I haven't done anything wrong and not treat me as if my life matters less than someone who isn't one.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Although that argument would suggest that you can't begin to answer that question without being "politically correct". Speaking as a black male living in London, I'd prefer coppers to leave me alone if I haven't done anything wrong and not treat me as if my life matters less than someone who isn't one.

I think it's because the argument disintegrates when it comes under scrutiny. In 2017 in London two thirds of knife crime offenders were BAME, and an even higher amount were victims.

As a mixed black male living not far from you (Southall) I'm not fussed the police are stopping me more often if it protects (majority) black lives. Yes it's annoying, but it's something I'm prepared to live with.

 

[UKMikey]

I think it's because the argument disintegrates when it comes under scrutiny. In 2017 in London two thirds of knife crime offenders were BAME, and an even higher amount were victims.

As a mixed black male living not far from you (Southall) I'm not fussed the police are stopping me more often if it protects (majority) black lives. Yes it's annoying, but it's something I'm prepared to live with it.

Do you have any measurements which back this up?

https://fullfact.org/crime/does-stop-search-work/

 

[longshot1314]

I'd like to preface that at least my experience with 'cancel culture' and PC culture has been with respect to entertainment. Largely I'd like present a hypothetical to illustrate my point. Say you are a stand-up comedian. You primarily make a living off of touring, which you heavily rely on social media to market, as well as any additional skits or content you may provide. You do a show one night where there's a 100 people and you tell a joke that offends about 5-10 of them while it's well received with the majority. Afterwards the 5-10 offended people accost you about the joke, rather sharply and bordering on harassment. You defend the joke and highlight that it's not serious and that it was well received save for them, but you'd take their comments into consideration and would offer them a refund if they weren't happy with the show. Later these 5-10 people go to social media and present the joke entirely out of context and call for your manager, bookers, sponsors etc to drop you, and it develops a large following. The joke continues to do fine at shows, representing that it is not the opinion of the majority. Yet due to the persistence of the social media movement, sponsors and bookers begin dropping your show, and you're even banned from those platforms. You take a massive hit due to negative publicity, despite the joke being taken out of context and even after people come to defend. You lose tons of money and even have your career put into jeopardy. This raises the question, owing to the nature of the situation, is this a justified result if 5-10 were offended by what you said and are not representative of the majority?

 

[Scaff]

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",

Indeed it does, and also the vast majority of situations as well, in fact, one would have to pull a dubious outlier out of the air to argue against it...

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.

I think it's because the argument disintegrates when it comes under scrutiny. In 2017 in London two thirds of knife crime offenders were BAME, and an even higher amount were victims.

Ah, the 'let's just look at London' argument, one that falls apart not just when you look at how effective it is, but also when you look outside of London.

On that basis you would, if the statistics are expanded to the whole of England and Wales, see the ratios of knife crime ethnicity and 'stop and search' even out, guess what? It doesn't.

In England and Wales, 38% of knife possession offenders under 25s were non-white in 2017. It was two thirds in London.
Source: https://fullfact.org/crime/are-majority-youth-knife-offenders-minority-ethnic/

There were 4 stop and searches for every 1,000 White people, compared with 38 for every 1,000 Black people
Source: https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures...e-and-the-law/policing/stop-and-search/latest

So in England and Wales whites commit 62% of all knife crime for under 25's, yet are over 9 times less likely to be stopped and searched than black people (unless you're in Dorset, when it jumps to 25 times less likely).

 

[huskeR32]

This raises the question, owing to the nature of the situation, is this a justified result if 5-10 were offended by what you said?

If there's enough of a reaction on social media that the comedy clubs are compelled by economic interest to not book the comedian any longer, and sponsors are compelled by economic interest to not associate with the comedian any longer, then surely many more than 5-10 people are now offended, no?

Unless it's your contention that one must hear something firsthand in order to have the right to be offended by it?

 

[Scaff]

I'd like to preface that at least my experience with 'cancel culture' and PC culture has been with respect to entertainment. Largely I'd like present a hypothetical to illustrate my point. Say you are a stand-up comedian. You primarily make a living off of touring, which you heavily rely on social media to market, as well as any additional skits or content you may provide. You do a show one night where there's a 100 people and you tell a joke that offends about 5-10 of them while it's well received with the majority. Afterwards the 5-10 offended people accost you about the joke, rather sharply and bordering on harassment. You defend the joke and highlight that it's not serious and that it was well received save for them, but you'd take their comments into consideration and would offer them a refund if they weren't happy with the show. Later these 5-10 people go to social media and present the joke entirely out of context and call for your manager, bookers, sponsors etc to drop you, and it develops a large following. The joke continues to do fine at shows, representing that it is not the opinion of the majority. Yet due to the persistence of the social media movement, sponsors and bookers begin dropping your show, and you're even banned from those platforms. You take a massive hit due to negative publicity, despite the joke being taken out of context and even after people come to defend. You lose tons of money and even have your career put into jeopardy. This raises the question, owing to the nature of the situation, is this a justified result if 5-10 were offended by what you said?

Unless you wish to outlaw free-speech, yes it is. Do promoters, managers, and sponsors lose the right to chose who they sign and who they represent and who they show?

You are also acting as if no recourse exists for the person in question, if defamation or libel has been committed then that is an option.

Let's counter this with a real-world example...

...do you believe that the NFL and associated teams should have been forced to sign him after he became a free-agent?

Now I personally 100% support the stand that Kaepernick took, but would never argue for a second that any team should have been forced to sign him, despite the rather large amount of evidence that he was effectively made 'Persona non Grata' by the NFL. He took legal action and reach a settlement with the NFL over that, not to mention the 'offended people' taking it to social media, going above 'bordering on harassment' given that it involved death threats and the end of his playing career.

Idiots have a right to be offended and say so, you have a right to offend them, what you don't have the right to do is argue for some kind of intervention to stop that happening.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Do you have any measurements which back this up?

https://fullfact.org/crime/does-stop-search-work/

I will look at the studies in more detail.

See below for more anecdotal evidence

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...h-stabbing-murder-cressida-dick-a8896761.html

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/met-police-london-stop-and-search-racism-b918169.html

The way I see it, 300 knives a month being taken off the street is a good thing.

Indeed it does, and also the vast majority of situations as well, in fact, one would have to pull a dubious outlier out of the air to argue against it...

Wait you guys can't continue to call these examples dubious. The report into GMPs handling of grooming gangs, the Jaye report, the IOPC ruling among many other independent testimonies all say that political correctness, per the definition, played a role. And the security guard even admitted himself he didn't want to appear racist!

As for them being outliers, the point was to show that "not being a dick" isn't the exclusive expression of political correctness, and I'm positive there are others.

Ah, the 'let's just look at London' argument

I live in London....

On that basis you would, if the statistics are expanded to the whole of England and Wales, see the ratios of knife crime ethnicity and 'stop and search' even out, guess what? It doesn't.

In England and Wales, 38% of knife possession offenders under 25s were non-white in 2017. It was two thirds in London.
Source: https://fullfact.org/crime/are-majority-youth-knife-offenders-minority-ethnic/

There were 4 stop and searches for every 1,000 White people, compared with 38 for every 1,000 Black people
Source: https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures...e-and-the-law/policing/stop-and-search/latest

So in England and Wales whites commit 62% of all knife crime for under 25's, yet are over 9 times less likely to be stopped and searched than black people (unless you're in Dorset, when it jumps to 25 times less likely).

Black people make up less than 3% of the population of England yet, from the statistics you've given, 38% of knife offenders are non white and you're asking why they are more likely to be stopped??

 

[huskeR32]

Black people make up less than 3% of the population of England yet, from the statistics you've given, 38% of knife offenders are non white and you're asking why they are more likely to be stopped??

You do know that "non-white" includes more than just black people, right?

 

[TexRex]

The conservative victim complex is absolute insanity.

 

[HenrySwanson]

You do know that "non-white" includes more than just black people, right?

Ya so this is the makeup:

https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures...tion-of-england-and-wales/latest#by-ethnicity

Chinese and Indians are very rarely involved in knife crimes (it's more gang related) so it's mainly a black/Asian problem (this is talking about non whites here). For context 25% of stabbing fatality victims in the UK are black (8 times higher than their population percentage). It's not hard to conclude that black offenders will make up a large proportion of the 38%

The conservative victim complex is absolute insanity.

I don't follow

 

[TexRex]

I don't follow

Okay.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Okay.

I'm intrigued.

Can you explain?

 

[huskeR32]

Ya so this is the makeup

https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures...tion-of-england-and-wales/latest#by-ethnicity

Chinese and Indians are very rarely involved in knife crimes (it's more gang related) so it's mainly a black/Asian problem (this is talking about non whites here).

What has any of this got to do with you using all non-white crime to justify anti-black prejudice on the part of police?

Unless you have knife crime numbers* broken down into more details than just "non-white" and "white," then trying to draw any connections to one specific race is going to require making assumptions. And while you continually demonstrate a willingness to do that, I'm not so eager to.

*While we're here, I'll note that, as you are wont to do, you've hinged your whole worldview on one oddly zoomed in figure. Why knife crimes in just one year? Why not several years? Why not other weapons? It smacks of you searching for data to attach to your already-existing conclusion.

For context 25% of stabbing fatality victims in the UK are black (8 times higher than their population percentage).

And? Does a knife only allow itself to penetrate a victim's skin if the assailant's is the same color?

I'm sorry, I'm going to have to hit pause on all of this while I deal with the newfound realization that knives are sentient.

It's not hard to conclude that black offenders will make up a large proportion of the 38%

Well, you've at least demonstrated that it's easy to assume it.

 

[UKMikey]

See below for more anecdotal evidence

Yawn.

 

[Scaff]

I will look at the studies in more detail.

See below for more anecdotal evidence

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...h-stabbing-murder-cressida-dick-a8896761.html

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/met-police-london-stop-and-search-racism-b918169.html

The way I see it, 300 knives a month being taken off the street is a good thing.

And what if other routes are more effective and this one doesn't actually solve the issue?

Wait you guys can't continue to call these examples dubious. The report into GMPs handling of grooming gangs, the Jaye report, the IOPC ruling among many other independent testimonies all say that political correctness, per the definition, played a role. And the security guard even admitted himself he didn't want to appear racist!

We certainly can if they are not quite as definitive as you like to claim them to be.

As for them being outliers, the point was to show that "not being a dick" isn't the exclusive expression of political correctness, and I'm positive there are others.

Who said it was the exclusive use?

I certainly didn't, unless you are attempting to take a tongue in cheek comment and turn it into an absolute that is.

I live in London....

Does London have a monopoly on either knife crime or non-white people?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49923129

Black people make up less than 3% of the population of England yet, from the statistics you've given, 38% of knife offenders are non white and you're asking why they are more likely to be stopped??

If you had bothered to either look at the sources or applied common sense, you would realize that non-white doesn't just mean black!

Chinese and Indians are very rarely involved in knife crimes (it's more gang related) so it's mainly a black/Asian problem (this is talking about non whites here). For context 25% of stabbing fatality victims in the UK are black (8 times higher than their population percentage). It's not hard to conclude that black offenders will make up a large proportion of the 38%

The Met disagrees, with Asian's coming in third behind black and white European in terms of the number of knife-related offenses from 2008 to 2018, and I hate to break it to you, but Indians are Asian (unless my wife is wrong about her ethnicity)!

https://www.met.police.uk/SysSiteAs...me-in-london-from-april-2008-to-november-2018

 

[Joey D]

I don't know the statistics of the UK justice system, but are minorities just prosecuted more because their groups skew towards lower-income and can't afford a good lawyer? Or do they legitimately commit more crimes? Here in the US, minorities do commit crimes, but so do many whites. It's just that some whites have better means to get a proper legal defense and end up either not being convicted or getting a reduced sentence.

 

[Scaff]

I don't know the statistics of the UK justice system, but are minorities just prosecuted more because their groups skew towards lower-income and can't afford a good lawyer? Or do they legitimately commit more crimes? Here in the US, minorities do commit crimes, but so do many whites. It's just that some whites have better means to get a proper legal defense and end up either not being convicted or getting a reduced sentence.

In the UK, just as I suspect in most countries, it skews with socio-economics. That skews it to minorities because they are statically more likely to fall lower on the socio-economic scale, but it's certainly not unique to non-whites at all.

However, the right-leaning UK press does like to portray it as a single issue (non-white) problem.

 

[HenrySwanson]

We certainly can if they are not quite as definitive as you like to claim them to be.

This is literally insane.

They all directly say political correctness played an influence. It's impossible to argue against, and yet you guys refuse to concede this point.

What point is there debating anything else?

Just for giggles, how is it not definitive?

I know @TexRex likes to talk perjoratively about conservatives and Trumpists, but I think this steadfast refusal to face facts doesn't put liberals in a good light

 

[Scaff]

This is literally insane.

They all directly say political correctness played an influence. It's impossible to argue against, and yet you guys refuse to concede this point.

What point is there debating anything else?

Just for giggles, how is it not definitive?

You’ve just covered it for me with the term ‘an influence’, you start with these definitives, that turn into influences, which on closer examination often fall further back.

They are quite possible to argue against, because they are not close to be as absolute as you initially present them as.

 

[HenrySwanson]

You’ve just covered it for me with the term ‘an influence’, you start with these definitives, that turn into influences, which on closer examination often fall further back.

They are quite possible to argue against, because they are not close to be as absolute as you initially present them as.

An influence is definitive.

Accept it was a factor and move on.

Teenage girls and young people at a concert were let down by people acting politically correct.

 

[TexRex]

Heh.

 

[Scaff]

An influence is definitive.

Citation required

Accept it was a factor and move on.

Or what?

What if a security guard failed to do their job and was looking for a good excuse to alleviate the blame and guilt?

Can you definitely and definitively rule that out, or is the anecdotal statement of a single person unquestionably accurate?

Teenage girls and young people at a concert were let down by people acting politically correct.

And right back to presenting it as the sole or main cause, which none of the sources have backed up.

 

[huskeR32]

They all directly say political correctness played an influence.

The problem here is that these people declined to report suspicious behavior because of their personal fear that "political correctness" was a thing, and that it would cause them problems if they acted. But because they didn't act, we don't know that there would have been any sort of "politically correct" response to them, do we?

The reports don't tell us that "Political Correctness" is actually a thing that exists or is something to be concerned about. They simply tell us that a few people imagined that it was. You want those to be the same thing, but they're not.

If I decline to report something suspicious because I think Sasquatch will kill me if I do, that doesn't suddenly make Sasquatch real.

It's impossible to argue against, and yet you guys refuse to concede this point.

No, it's not.

 

[UKMikey]

The only person complaining about political correctness in this article about last month's report disproving the link between ethnicity and grooming gangs is our right-wing Home Secretary who didn't want to release the report for some reason until those pesky liberals demanded it in their tens of thousands. Perhaps it was because most offenders weren't of South Asian origin after all?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...eview-race-religion-home-office-b1774161.html

 

[HenrySwanson]

The problem here is that these people declined to report suspicious behavior because of their personal fear that "political correctness" was a thing, and that it would cause them problems if they acted. But because they didn't act, we don't know that there would have been any sort of "politically correct" response to them, do we?

I think there's a misunderstanding here. Political correctness isn't the potential response to them acting - it is the cause of the inaction. It's the conditioning (in this case) that the accusation of racism is worse than if they acted. Now you might say those fears are unfounded, but something tangible caused them nonetheless.

EDIT: Also bear in mind when saying "a few people" we are talking about multiple police forces and social service authorities

The reports don't tell us that "Political Correctness" is actually a thing that exists or is something to be concerned about. They simply tell us that a few people imagined that it was. You want those to be the same thing, but they're not.

See above

If I decline to report something suspicious because I think Sasquatch will kill me if I do, that doesn't suddenly make Sasquatch real.

But what made you think sasquatch will kill you?

Citation required



Or what?

What if a security guard failed to do their job and was looking for a good excuse to alleviate the blame and guilt?

Can you definitely and definitively rule that out, or is the anecdotal statement of a single person unquestionably accurate?


And right back to presenting it as the sole or main cause, which none of the sources have backed up.

This doesn't make sense

The only person complaining about political correctness in this article about last month's report disproving the link between ethnicity and grooming gangs is our right-wing Home Secretary who didn't want to release the report for some reason until those pesky liberals demanded it in their tens of thousands. Perhaps it was because most offenders weren't of South Asian origin after all?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...eview-race-religion-home-office-b1774161.html

This is like saying most victims of police shootings in America are white (and we saw what happened when Trump said that). The important thing to look at is proportionality - white people are under represented in grooming gang offending while south Asians are over represented.

Also Patel wasn't the only one talking about the inadequacy of the report.

Heh.

I would like to know about the victim complex however and how it's relative to this discussion. I agree there is that mentality when talking about cancel culture etc

* I will respond to the posts about stop and search it's just this seems to be a sticking point

 

[huskeR32]

I think there's a misunderstanding here.

Indeed.

Political correctness isn't the potential response to them acting - it is the cause of the inaction. It's the conditioning (in this case) that the accusation of racism is worse than if they acted.

You say it isn't about the potential response, and then go on to say they didn't act because of the potential response. You must see how nonsensical that is.

Now you might say those fears are unfounded, but something tangible caused them nonetheless.

I don't think you know what tangible means.

EDIT: Also bear in mind when saying "a few people" we are talking about multiple police forces and social service authorities

And?

See above

I haven't a clue which part of the above you think addresses this.

But what made you think sasquatch will kill you?

Bedtime stories that I was unable to separate from reality.

 

[UKMikey]

This is like saying most victims of police shootings in America are white (and we saw what happened when Trump said that). The important thing to look at is proportionality - white people are under represented in grooming gang offending while south Asians are over represented.

According to the findings of a disputed report.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...e-asians-we-dont-know-if-that-figure-is-right
https://zelo-street.blogspot.com/2018/11/quilliam-report-finally-destroyed.html

The new report also casts doubt upon this one's selection criteria.

Also Patel wasn't the only one talking about the inadequacy of the report.

She's the only one mentioning political correctness as a factor in the article and even there she says it's difficult to draw a conclusion one way or the other, unlike the one you're presenting as fact.

 

[Scaff]

This doesn't make sense

Someone not doing their job and coming up with an excuse for it doesn’t make sense?

Odd because it’s a remarkably simple concept.

Tell you what, point me to the section in the Kerslake Report that cites fear of racism or political correctness as a factor?

 

[HenrySwanson]

You say it isn't about the potential response, and then go on to say they didn't act because of the potential response. You must see how nonsensical that is.

Hmmm rookie error. I said it's not the response that is political correctness, not that it wasn't about it. Using your analogy I was trying to show that it's the cause rather than the effect.

I don't think you know what tangible means.

Ok

And?

What is this affliction that causes so many people to be so scared of racism to act like this. You say it's an imaginary bogeyman but what are the chances they all believe in it?

According to the findings of a disputed report.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...e-asians-we-dont-know-if-that-figure-is-right
https://zelo-street.blogspot.com/2018/11/quilliam-report-finally-destroyed.html

The new report also casts doubt upon this one's selection criteria.

You're very confused.

The home office report looked at multiple studies and these, plus their own preliminary research all showed Asians were over represented.

You can find that here

As you can see, even in the study with a large number of "unknown ethnicity" we can still safely say they are over represented because even if by some miracle there were no Asians in that cohort they would still be over 17% [0.28 * (1-0.38)]

The literature review for the report which goes into more depth is here

The quilliam "study" is discussed, but it is shown to be not very robust.

She's the only one mentioning political correctness as a factor in the article and even there she says it's difficult to draw a conclusion one way or the other, unlike the one you're presenting as fact.

Now I'm confused. I'm presenting what as fact? The home office report didn't investigate political correctness