Political Correctness

[Scaff]

But then, logically, you have to treat her arguments with the same skepticism you approach mine with....

You can't give her a pass because it fits your world view.

I do, I’m simply explaining the reason why the headline reads as it does.

You want to stop these kinds of stories being needed? Then stop sharing and promoting racist, xenophobic and bigoted crap in the first place.

 

[UKMikey]

TIL skepticism means throwing out a whole article because of a quibble with the meaning of its headline while deciding a Mail hitpiece informed by the European Research Group has to be the gospel truth because Muslims are not not responsible for the majority of paedophilia in this country.

 

[VBR]

 

[McLaren]

This is the founder of the channel. Just so everyone can see the bad faith arguments he presents before anyone attempts to waste 30 minutes of their day.

 

[Scaff]

How about actually explaining what that is supposed to be about, rather than simply linking a video?

 

[HenrySwanson]

I do, I’m simply explaining the reason why the headline reads as it does.

You want to stop these kinds of stories being needed? Then stop sharing and promoting racist, xenophobic and bigoted crap in the first place.

You're explaining why you support a wrong headline, and therefore wrong premise?

The article also states:

We need finally to accept what credible research has been telling us for years: that child sexual abuse is not a “Muslim problem” but is endemic to virtually all communities

1. Muslims as a category weren't investigated by the report - rather it was offenders ethnicity. Could there not be White-British Muslims or Asian Pakistani Christians?
2. This report looked into group based CSE, not CSE. I don't know if anyone was claiming CSE was a "Muslim problem" (in fact, sexual abuse as a whole was classed as a "white problem" in another article from the Guardian

TIL skepticism means throwing out a whole article because of a quibble with the meaning of its headline while deciding a Mail hitpiece informed by the European Research Group has to be the gospel truth because Muslims are not not responsible for the majority of paedophilia in this country.

I think your bias is showing.

The ERG mentioned in the article isn't the European Research Group (which for those who don't know is a bunch of Conservative Eurosceptics), it is a an external research group set up to assist the Home Office report.

As such your claims that we should ignore their claims is baseless.

This sounds like nonsense to me too but not on @huskeR32's side. I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think he's saying that bigots are shying away from those cases where the facts appear to support their general political viewpoint.

I think it's more that, in the majority of cases where they rail against cancel culture and censorship they're refusing to deal with the consequences of, and reactions to, the divisive comments they make and instead want to blame liberal society or Big Tech or the media or the left in general because their political centre is so far to the right they don't realise that they are themselves a minority.

I guess it depends upon whether one generally sees the politically incorrect as the arbiters of inconvenient truths, or paranoid ranters who want to marginalise particular demographics or push particular ideologies and will grasp at anything that provides grist to that mill. A stopped clock is right twice a day, but that doesn't make it an accurate way to tell the time.

This still doesn't answer his question as to why they're "the opposite of bigots" if they sign up to these echo chambers but stay quiet, by the way.

Isn't this more to do with us having different views on the world. I can't convince you why my suspicions are any more valid than yours and others in this thread and you can't convince me since we can't possibly know their motivations. You have this belief that it must be bigotry in the majority of cases whereas I think it's something else that's pretty pervasive.

 

[Scaff]

You're explaining why you support a wrong headline, and therefore wrong premise?

The article also states:

We need finally to accept what credible research has been telling us for years: that child sexual abuse is not a “Muslim problem” but is endemic to virtually all communities

1. Muslims as a category weren't investigated by the report - rather it was offenders ethnicity. Could there not be White-British Muslims or Asian Pakistani Christians?
2. This report looked into group based CSE, not CSE. I don't know if anyone was claiming CSE was a "Muslim problem" (in fact, sexual abuse as a whole was classed as a "white problem" in another article from the Guardian

And let me repeat once again...

"I do, I’m simply explaining the reason why the headline reads as it does.

You want to stop these kinds of stories being needed? Then stop sharing and promoting racist, xenophobic and bigoted crap in the first place."

As for your linked article, did you even bother reading it?

It's an opinion piece that's saying pretty much what I am saying, the last paragraph gives that away...

"Since the "black crime shock" tabloid stories of the 1980s, editors have known that stoking fears about misunderstood minorities is good for sales. If you object to this article, then you should understand how it feels to be a Muslim reading similar pieces pandering to Islamophobia day after day – and you should object to those too."

...that you suddenly want to apply a degree of rigour to these pieces that you have failed to do so in your postings over the years that you used to target the Black and Muslim communities indicates just how far over your head both have gone, and how little you have actually grown.

 

[UKMikey]

I think your bias is showing.

You're perfectly free to think what you like.

The ERG mentioned in the article isn't the European Research Group (which for those who don't know is a bunch of Conservative Eurosceptics), it is a an external research group set up to assist the Home Office report.

As such your claims that we should ignore their claims is baseless.

It's an article that pays lip service to cultural factors but makes its intentions clear towards the end to draw a direct correlation between race and child sexual exploitation.

There's a reason. Windrush. Grenfell. Footballers taking a knee. The impact of Covid on black and ethnic communities. The British people are consistently told to view issues through the prism of race. Save for one. When it comes to the systemic mass child abuse, they are instructed to turn a blind eye. To do so, the Home Office says, is in the public interest.

The Home Office is wrong. It is not in the public interest to continue to cover up of one of the darkest chapters in our nation's history.

Last week the victims of Britain's Asian grooming gangs were betrayed once more. They must not be betrayed again.

Unless everyone from the same race is equally culpable, this is a dangerous parallel to make. Examine the cultural factors that led to this abuse rather than treating every South Asian as a potential child abuser. Quit dogwhistling for fascists and stoking up passions for a race war, Dan.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...erham-grooming-gang-sex-abusers-a6901166.html

 

[NotThePrez]

After a very unfun 2 days....

It's not set in stone. It makes certain things more or less likely, but it's not the ethnicity itself that is causing that (at least I don't think it is).

But you're still (at minimum by proxy) casting a significant amount of blame on ethnicity for criminal actions, rather than socio-economic factors, as @UKMikey already mentioned. You're basically saying "A person has a greater chance of turning towards crime because they live in a predominately black neighborhood."

They're more likely to be exposed to or influenced by certain factors that will lead them to criminality.

And what you're advocating for basically ignores the possibility that they're not criminals or haven't been influenced by "certain factors," and instead assumes that they're criminals because of what they look like/where they come from.

I see the social impact.

But do you actually get the social impact? Do you actually understand how it makes people feel and what kind of resentment it creates? Based on your statements, I'm guessing no.

Living not far from @UKMikey I've been pulled over while driving and stopped and searched far more times than my white friends, but I always saw it as something to put up with for the greater good. Looking into the studies more deeply, I'm not sure how much I believe that anymore.

That's called profiling and generally speaking, it's not for the greater good. That is, in of itself, a form of institutional racism. The social failures and disenfranchisement caused by such practices over time is very well documented.

That being said, the fact that you've claimed to experience such things firsthand (and admit that you don't quite believe it's for the "greater good" anymore) and yet continue to push for objectivity biased and racist/xenophobic measures makes me even more confused.

They have the same potential, but not the same likelihood.

Why does likelihood matter? If someone is suspected of committing white-collar crime (or any kind of crime for that matter), they should be investigated as appropriate, regardless of how the suspect may look. If a young, black female who has all the markings of being a suspect isn't given proper attention because it's "unlikely" due to their skin color and/or gender, than that's still being racist and/or sexist in the investigation, and is a failure on the part of the investigator (and you still make it easier for the black female to continue committing crimes).

Criminal investigations should always be as impartial as possible, and all viable suspects should be considered. Doing otherwise can lead to (at this point) very obvious, yet very costly consequences.

I've been doing that for pages in this thread (and others).

And as far as I can tell, not much of it seems to have sunk in, because it doesn't match the "science" that you're pushing. Science, surveys, statistics and the like aren't the end-be-all to solving a problem. Sometimes just looking at what actual people are saying, and turning off preconceived notions for a moment can be more eye-opening than whatever a study can say.

 

[Touring Mars]

My work was in the news the other day, under the headline:

"Half of BAME students harassed at Glasgow University, report shows"

https://www.theguardian.com/educati...ents-harassed-glasgow-university-report-shows

The survey included 500 students and 20 (!?) staff, so it may need to be taken with a pinch of salt, but it has served as a wake up call to senior staff... but perhaps not in a good way...

Not one but two senior colleagues in my department dropped a bollock yesterday by commenting on the report, one in an informal staff Zoom meeting (that I was at) and the other (rather stupidly) on Twitter.

The former was a mate of mine, and he made the 'mistake' of asking, by name, three BAME staff members if they had ever experienced racism or harassment at work. One woman (of Indian descent) instantly vanished from the meeting, and as it would turn out, because she was so angry at the question. She then lodged a complaint that 'being singled out' was inappropriate and insensitive. To make matters worse, another Professor who was at the same meeting also picked up on it and has also now apparently taken offense too.

I must admit, I would not have been quite so blunt as to point-blank ask non-white members of staff a question about racial harassment in front of other colleagues, but the person in question is of mixed race himself and has encountered racism many times in his life too, so he didn't think it was inappropriate for him to ask such a question.

I bumped into him on my way home last night in the pouring rain, and he cut a rather forlorn figure... he seemed bemused at the fact that he had been complained about and that even more senior staff are now getting involved.

I personally think it wasn't a great idea to broach the subject in the way he did, but now it feels like even mentioning 'sensitive' topics in what was essentially an informal 'coffee' (organised and hosted by the person who asked the question) is now off limits, which is a bit of a shame.

 

[TenEightyOne]

My work was in the news the other day, under the headline:

"Half of BAME students harassed at Glasgow University, report shows"

To be clear: by "my work" you mean the place where you work, not a harassment endeavour that's taken years to complete? Reads either way

I must admit, I would not have been quite so blunt as to point-blank ask non-white members of staff a question about racial harassment in front of other colleagues, but the person in question is of mixed race himself and has encountered racism many times in his life too, so he didn't think it was inappropriate for him to ask such a question.

That's problematic because it's public questioning about private support procedures in your workplace. If the intention was that some participants would talk about their own experiences with harassment then it should have been agreed with them beforehand. I have difficulties in certain workplaces and am quite open about them but I wouldn't like to be randomly picked on as a Zoom-xample. He effed up well-meaningly, which happens to us all. Now it remains to be seen how he copes with that and, more importantly, how sensitively his workplace supports him.

It sounds like there really do need to be discussions around the report's findings, if the samples don't look good then the Uni should put some resources into a further-reaching examination of the real situation. And for god's sake warn participants in meetings if they're going to be randomly sampled on air!

 

[Touring Mars]

Yes, I mean 'my workplace', not my personal work...

I think my mate is a bit miffed that someone took such offense and that a senior colleague has sided with them so rapidly, putting him under pressure for something that was well-meaning.

A big part of the problem is that we would normally talk about these things informally over lunch or, more likely, in the pub on a Friday night, but we can't do that, and so these discussions have moved into 'coffee mornings', which are a little stilted at best, and at worst they can become a bit more like a job interview than a social meeting. The Q&A format is also a consequence of having these meetings on Zoom and the fact that some people would literally never open their mouths unless directly asked a question by the host (my mate), and so that at least partially explains the situation.

The other guy seems to have discovered the phrase 'when you are in a hole, stop digging' after his 'apology' went down even more badly than his original comment.

I think the Head of School is going to have a busy day on Monday

 

[Touring Mars]

That's problematic because it's public questioning about private support procedures in your workplace. If the intention was that some participants would talk about their own experiences with harassment then it should have been agreed with them beforehand.

I think I misrepresented what he actually said a bit. He was actually commenting on the fact that only 20 staff were approached, and asked the 3 other BAME colleagues in the meeting if they had been approached by the Uni, because he hadn't. Hence, it seems very harsh to lodge a complaint against someone for that. The woman who complained, however, has a bit of a track record for this kind of thing though, so I would imagine that it will be dismissed.

I also got it wrong about the other guy - his incident had nothing to do with the racism issue, and stemmed from a somewhat ill-advised Twitter joke about renaming his research group 'PomHub', because they study things called POMs. He even mocked up a logo to look like the 'original'. When he got flak for it, instead of just saying sorry, he appeared to criticise those who took offense, and then ended up criticising people for being critical of his apology, and it went downhill from there.

 

[VBR]

I recently came across this, which pretty much sums up how I've always felt, & still continue to feel, about PC...

 

[MatskiMonk]

I find it interesting that someone with your views is so keen to buy in to a victim complex that you'll espouse the virtues of creating your own safe space, in what is already a tightly moderated community, through announcing your intention to 'ignore' people you don't want in your echo chamber.

I mean, did you ever stop to consider you might have become what you protest against?

 

[Liquid]

You know what my problem with political correctless is? It's a misnomer. It's not political correctness, it's social correctness. I'd go out on a limb and say that 90% of the so-called political correctness I have seen, witnessed or otherwise been around has come from society and not politicians, politics or government.

It's activists and members of the public furthering their agenda, whether you agree with it or not. Mostly about the things you can't say; can't say Paki, can't say coloured, can't say raghead. Or more ideally, shouldn't say Paki, shouldn't say coloured, shouldn't say raghead. It's the societal collective looking at ways to improve communal harmony. Make groups feel at ease. Foster understanding between you and the people who are different to you.

Reactionaries love, love, to bandy the term political correctness out as a way of removing themselves from the discussion, as a way to bring in the imaginary "them". They are telling me what to say. Who's they? Admitting that it's ordinary people calling them out for being insular or insensitive, quite literally calling a spade a spade in their own language, isn't ideal. It only highlights how reactionary or whimsically nostalgic they are for a time that never existed. It's much, much easier to push the narrative of THE SYSTEM trying to CENSOR them rather than accepting that they might possibly be backward and no longer at the forefront of what is acceptable or tolerated.

I don't deny that political correctness exists, of course it does. But to me, "political" correctness is an oppressive regime enforcing its will on an unwilling populace; forced disappearances, dissidents in prison, doctored historical records, narratives like "Gays do not exist here" and the like. That is politics correcting the "wrongs".

I also don't deny that politicians and governments do engage in social correctness but I'll say again that a vast, vast, vast majority of the POLITICAL CORRECTNESS GONE MAD that people get outraged by is ordinary people pursuing extraordinary causes.

 

[UKMikey]

The myth is that minorities like us love to be abused and it's the well meaning white do-gooders who are spoiling things for everybody else.

Damn right, I've got a chip on my shoulder about people who think that. They convince themselves that they're the only ones standing up for our "rights" to take the **** they dish our way, while those of us who demand equal respect are really the ones in the wrong.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Two things.

There's an interesting article that I'm not sure has been posted by the Atlantic on how people view political correctness in the States with some surprising, and some not so surprising results

And

Are reactions like this what causes, or feeds political correctness?

EDIT:

Also, after looking at the latest prostate cancer advert I saw that there was no problem targeting it specifically to men, yet there has been a lot of change with regards to products/services that cater to cis-women/trans men and how they are presented to the public. Is this unequal treatment a product of misogyny as some feminists claim?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Also, after looking at the latest prostate cancer advert I saw that there was no problem targeting it specifically to men, yet there has been a lot of change with regards to products/services that cater to cis-women/trans men and how they are presented to the public. Is this unequal treatment a product of misogyny as some feminists claim?

Campaigns target demographics that need particular help. Cis women don't have prostates, trans men are likely already very health/biology aware. Straight, retro-archetypal men's-men rugger-buggers don't think about their prostates or lumps on their knackers, I suspect that's what's at the centre of that campaign.

 

[UKMikey]

I don't think marketing departments are as concerned with appearing politically correct as they are with reaching their target demographic and shifting product or getting their message across. Reactionaries like to blame this on the PC boogeyman instead of the cold dead hand of the market but you catch flies with honey and not vinegar.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Campaigns target demographics that need particular help. Cis women don't have prostates, trans men are likely already very health/biology aware. Straight, retro-archetypal men's-men rugger-buggers don't think about their prostates or lumps on their knackers, I suspect that's what's at the centre of that campaign.

But by saying "men" they are excluding trans women who may have prostates.

I was comparing the language used in that campaign to what J.K Rowling took umbrage to regarding the "people who menstruate" line for sanitary products. It seems (to a few vocal feminists at least) that there's not as much of an issue with offending trans women as opposed to offending trans men (with things such as "chestfeeding" instead of breastfeeding, or the allowance of self identifying athletes in women's sports)

 

[Biggles]

I think it's a bit naive to think there's an easily identifiable point at which PC becomes "too much". It's definitely a slippery slope. The latest example being the "banning" of 6 Dr. Seuss books from publication. It's been the lead story on the Fox News website for a couple of days now (!).

I actually own 3 of the books in question. The very few questionable pages do indeed have "racist" elements by today's standards. I'm not sure why they are not simply deleted. But beyond that, the basic premise of some of the Seuss books, like "If I Ran The Zoo", is that the world is portrayed as full of exotic "other" people, which is increasingly being seen as fundamentally racist. Not to mention that in the case of that book & the "If I Ran the Circus" , zoos & circuses are now seen as fundamentally inappropriate.

So much art & literature of the past is "politically incorrect" in one was or another, how do you decide how where to draw the line?

 

[Danoff]

I think it's a bit naive to think there's an easily identifiable point at which PC becomes "too much". It's definitely a slippery slope. The latest example being the "banning" of 6 Dr. Seuss books from publication. It's been the lead story on the Fox News website for a couple of days now (!).

I actually own 3 of the books in question. The very few questionable pages do indeed have "racist" elements by today's standards. I'm not sure why they are not simply deleted. But beyond that, the basic premise of some of the Seuss books, like "If I Ran The Zoo", is that the world is portrayed as full of exotic "other" people, which is increasingly being seen as fundamentally racist. Not to mention that in the case of that book & the "If I Ran the Circus" , zoos & circuses are now seen as fundamentally inappropriate.

So much art & literature of the past is "politically incorrect" in one was or another, how do you decide how where to draw the line?

"Banning" being the operative word here. Sometimes older literature is not necessarily the greatest thing to teach young kids. Why is this surprising to anyone?

 

[Liquid]

Once again, social correctness.

Was it politicians who demanded and enforced these changes or was it publishers and copyright holders making the decision themselves?

 

[Jezza819]

Once again, social correctness.

Was it politicians who demanded and enforced these changes or was it publishers and copyright holders making the decision themselves?

The way I understand it is that the decision came from the publishers themselves.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/reckoning-dr-seuss-racist-imagery-has-been-years-making-n1259330

 

[Keef]

I don't personally use TikTok because I think snippet videos are brain-melting but apparently Gen Zers are starting some sort of campaign to cancel the antics of...Eminem. Oh really?

Even if we aren't fans per se, most of us from Eminem's target audience know and respect the artist, his skills, success, and understand the points he was trying to make, even if we didn't truly understand it while listening as kids. But apparently Em's work - and his career-long battle and defeat of being cancelled - has gone over the heads of the kids these days. Hell we might get a new album out of this and it'll be glorious, trolling a whole new generation of people who are going to be terribly offended. It'll sell millions! I'm here for it.

There's a lot to be said for learning new things about people and society, working on empathy skills, trying to be constructive rather than destructive, trying to bring people together rather than push them apart. I get that, and I've had to do a lot of learning along the way. I don't describe these things as "PC", I just describe them as being a good person. But now it seems that some Gen Zers (I hope this isn't a broad movement) have decided they want to attack an artist for their artistic expression? Sorry but if you don't believe in artistic expression then you don't believe in anything. There definitely are appropriate times to tell somebody to shut up and pay attention.

 

[Danoff]

I don't personally use TikTok because I think snippet videos are brain-melting but apparently Gen Zers are starting some sort of campaign to cancel the antics of...Eminem. Oh really?

Even if we aren't fans per se, most of us from Eminem's target audience know and respect the artist, his skills, success, and understand the points he was trying to make, even if we didn't truly understand it while listening as kids. But apparently Em's work - and his career-long battle and defeat of being cancelled - has gone over the heads of the kids these days. Hell we might get a new album out of this and it'll be glorious, trolling a whole new generation of people who are going to be terribly offended. It'll sell millions! I'm here for it.

There's a lot to be said for learning new things about people and society, working on empathy skills, trying to be constructive rather than destructive, trying to bring people together rather than push them apart. I get that, and I've had to do a lot of learning along the way. I don't describe these things as "PC", I just describe them as being a good person. But now it seems that some Gen Zers (I hope this isn't a broad movement) have decided they want to attack an artist for their artistic expression? Sorry but if you don't believe in artistic expression then you don't believe in anything. There definitely are appropriate times to tell somebody to shut up and pay attention.

If they don't like this particular artist's expression, that's their prerogative. Market demand sorts this out.

 

[Keef]

If they don't like this particular artist's expression, that's their prerogative. Market demand sorts this out.

No it doesn't, and that's not the point. The point of this "cancel culture" is a belief that a thing worth cancelling is morally wrong and shouldn't exist.

Thus a belief that an artist's art shouldn't exist, or that the artist shouldn't be allowed to make art is just plain wrong. They have a belief that is fundamentally wrong and that's not something "the market" is capable of dealing with.

 

[Danoff]

No it doesn't, and that's not the point. The point of this "cancel culture" is a belief that a thing worth cancelling is morally wrong and shouldn't exist.

Thus a belief that an artist's art shouldn't exist, or that the artist shouldn't be allowed to make art is just plain wrong. They have a belief that is fundamentally wrong and that's not something "the market" is capable of dealing with.

Look, I think that Kanye West's "art" shouldn't exist, and he shouldn't be making his "art". I'd love for him to be cancelled. And the market says that he has enough support that he can keep going. The same is true of Eminem or any other artist. People can think Eminem shouldn't make "art" all they want, but as long as he has supporters like you, they can pound sand.

The market sorts this out perfectly.

 

[Keef]

Look, I think that Kanye West's "art" shouldn't exist, and he shouldn't be making his "art". I'd love for him to be cancelled.

Well I think that's a pretty poor attitude and you should definitely reevaluate it. I'm not a fan of Garth Brooks or Taylor Swift but not a single pixel of me thinks they should should stop and the reason is because I respect their freedom of expression. A "market" has nothing to do with that. There is no "market" for logic. This market you speak of doesn't dictate anything at all, it's merely a consequence of rational thought. A market doesn't allow these artists to create, rationality does. An attitude that doesn't respect that is rude at minimum.

Edit: And as I'm free to think your opinion is rude, you're free to think Eminem's content is rude, but I don't wish you would ever stop expressing your opinion, and I'd hope you wouldn't wish anybody else would stop expressing theirs.