Political Correctness - How far should we go

General discussion - "gossip and tittle tattle"

Has Political Correctness gone too far

Yes
15
58%
No
11
42%
Cant say for fear of reprisals
0
No votes
 
Total votes: 26

User avatar
Rex_Mundi
Posts: 93
Joined: 08 Mar 2006, 08:55
Location: portobello

Political Correctness - How far should we go

Post by Rex_Mundi » 10 May 2006, 16:13

How far should we go with Political Correctness?
''Political correctness'' (also ''politically correct'', ''P.C.'' or ''PC'') is a term used to describe language that appears calculated to provide a minimum of offense, particularly to the racial or cultural groups being described. The term is normally used in a pejorative or ironic sense, and is a frequent target for comedians and satirists.
The Three Little Politically Correct Pigs
Excerpt from J.F.Garner's book "Politically Correct Bedtime Stories."

Once there were three little pigs who lived together in mutual respect
and in harmony with their environment. Using materials that were
indigenous to the area, they each built a beautiful house.
One pig built a house of straw, one a house of sticks, and one a house of dung,
clay, and creeper vines shaped into bricks and baked in a small kiln.

When they were finished, the pigs were satisfied with their work and settled back to live in peace and self-determination.

But their idyll was soon shattered. One day, along came a big, bad wolf
with expansionist ideas. He saw the pigs and grew very hungry, in both
the physical and ideological sense. When the pigs saw the wolf, they ran into the house of straw.

The wolf ran up to the house and banged on the door, shouting, "Little pigs, little pigs, let me in!"

The pigs shouted back, "Your gunboat tactics hold no fear for pigs defending their homes and culture."

But the wolf wasn't to be denied what he thought was his manifest destiny.

So he huffed and he puffed and he blew down the house of straw. The frightened pigs ran to the house of sticks, with the wolf in hot pursuit.

Where the house of straw had stood, other wolves bought up the land and
started a banana plantation. At the house of sticks, the wolf again
banged on the door and shouted, "Little pigs, little pigs, let me in!"

The pigs shouted, "Go to hell, you carnivorous, imperialistic oppressor!" At this, the wolf chuckled condescendingly.
He thought to himself: "They are so childlike in their ways. It will be a shame to see them go, but progress cannot be stopped."

So the wolf huffed and puffed and blew down the house of sticks.
The pigs ran to the house of bricks, with the wolf close at their heels.
Where the house of sticks had stood, other wolves built a time-share condo resort complex for vacationing wolves, with each unit a fiberglass reconstruction of the house of sticks, as well as native curio shops, snorkeling, and dolphin shows.

At the house of bricks, the wolf again banged on the door and shouted,
"Little pigs, little pigs, let me in!" This time in response, the pigs sang songs of solidarity and wrote letters of protest to the United Nations. By now the wolf was getting angry at the pigs' refusal to see the situation from the carnivore's point of view. So he huffed and he puffed, and huffed and puffed, the grabbed his chest and fell over dead of a massive heart attack brought on from eating too many fatty foods.

The three little pigs rejoiced that justice had triumphed and did a little dance around the corpse of the wolf. Their next step was to liberate their homeland. They gathered together a band of other pigs who had been forced off their lands. Their new brigade of porcinistas attacked the resort complex with machine guns and rocket launchers and slaughtered the cruel wolf oppressors, sending a clear signal to the rest of the hemisphere not to meddle in their internal affairs.

Then the pigs set up a model socialist democracy with free education, universal health care, and affordable housing for everyone.


Please Note: The wolf in this story was a metaphorical construct. No
actual wolves were harmed in the writing of the story.


This story is of course borrowed from the Politically Correct Bedtime stories online Site.

But what do you think :?:
[b]Cogito, ergo sum[/b]

User avatar
Dadaist
Posts: 6159
Joined: 05 Jul 2004, 19:42
Location: on the fringes of Portobello

Post by Dadaist » 10 May 2006, 16:17

What has inspired this, Rex?

Also - what do you think?

User avatar
Rex_Mundi
Posts: 93
Joined: 08 Mar 2006, 08:55
Location: portobello

Post by Rex_Mundi » 10 May 2006, 17:08

Dadaist wrote:What has inspired this, Rex?

Also - what do you think?
Too too far dear boy, too too far.

When one opens a door for a lady, one does not expect to be thrashed for undermining the ability of the lady. :evil3: ](*,)

One should always check the small print in ones contract of employment, shouldn't one. :idea:
[b]Cogito, ergo sum[/b]

User avatar
Dadaist
Posts: 6159
Joined: 05 Jul 2004, 19:42
Location: on the fringes of Portobello

Post by Dadaist » 10 May 2006, 17:23

I guess it depends whether you opened the door for her because she was a lady, or because it's polite to open doors for people.

I can't really comment on that example because I've always opened doors for people regardless of gender.

If you were thrashed unfairly I have every sympathy, as you were being falsely accused of discrimination. However, if you were opening the door because she was female then you do risk causing offence.

Why not just treat women and men the same in that situation?

User avatar
Rex_Mundi
Posts: 93
Joined: 08 Mar 2006, 08:55
Location: portobello

Post by Rex_Mundi » 10 May 2006, 17:46

Dadaist wrote: Why not just treat women and men the same in that situation?
I do, oh how I do.. if only oscar had something to say about ladies, it might bring me some comfort :D
[b]Cogito, ergo sum[/b]

User avatar
Pal of Porty
Posts: 2136
Joined: 30 Sep 2004, 13:41
Location: Old Folks Home
Contact:

Post by Pal of Porty » 10 May 2006, 19:58

Coincidentally - Last Friday a good friend of mine, referred to me "As the most un-pc person she knows". Thank goodness she has not met some of my colleagues! :oops:
Justice delayed is justice denied.

foxy
Posts: 2055
Joined: 05 Nov 2004, 09:04
Location: wherever I lay my hat

Post by foxy » 10 May 2006, 20:40

Pal of Porty wrote:Coincidentally - Last Friday a good friend of mine, referred to me "As the most un-pc person she knows". Thank goodness she has not met some of my colleagues! :oops:
She must have meant un- polis like :roll:

seanie
Posts: 2313
Joined: 03 Feb 2006, 20:43
Location: Brighton Place

Post by seanie » 10 May 2006, 20:58

I vote no.

Political Correctness may be over-zelous at times but mostly it's trivial and its impact is grossly exagerated. It's routinely applied as a term of disapproval to things that have no connection to Political Correctness.

It's so over-used a term it's meaning is hopelessly vague.

And the term un-PC is sometimes embraced as a badge of honour by unreconstructed bigots.

User avatar
Rex_Mundi
Posts: 93
Joined: 08 Mar 2006, 08:55
Location: portobello

Post by Rex_Mundi » 10 May 2006, 21:22

seanie wrote:I vote no.
Doth the man protest too much! :D
[b]Cogito, ergo sum[/b]

seanie
Posts: 2313
Joined: 03 Feb 2006, 20:43
Location: Brighton Place

Post by seanie » 10 May 2006, 22:19

Well complaining about PC is certainly popular but I don't see it as a significant issue.

User avatar
Dadaist
Posts: 6159
Joined: 05 Jul 2004, 19:42
Location: on the fringes of Portobello

Post by Dadaist » 10 May 2006, 23:39

edit -> removed repeated question - oops!

I think I agree with seanie. It's all a bit vague - meaning that the term un-PC can be vague too which creates a rather large grab-bag, unfairly putting people who think this or that is a bit wrong with yer actual bigot.

I'd like to see some examples of pc going nuts and see what I think of them - right now all I know about is the legislation that's in place to fight discrimination.

I have to say I voted no - if only because I see the current legislation as progressive and haven't yet come across something in the workplace I see as encroaching on my rights.

seanie
Posts: 2313
Joined: 03 Feb 2006, 20:43
Location: Brighton Place

Post by seanie » 11 May 2006, 12:45

Look at the quote provided.
''Political correctness'' (also ''politically correct'', ''P.C.'' or ''PC'') is a term used to describe language that appears calculated to provide a minimum of offense, particularly to the racial or cultural groups being described.
It’s accurate in that Politcal Correctness, in its origins, was concerned with language, the use of words.

But the example given of Political Correctness doesn’t fall within that definition. People objecting to doors being held open has nothing to do with language. But, fair enough, definitions can change and expand and take on new meanings. So perhaps it’s reasonable as an example of Political Correctness.

But if so I question how much of a problem it is.

I routinely hold doors open for people, young and old, male and female. I have never ever noticed a hostile reaction. No reaction certainly, but that doesn’t usually bother me. If there are large numbers of people out there outraged by having doors held open for them then I haven’t encountered any.

That’s not to say they don’t exist. But I suspect they represent a tiny minority of people.

And so a pretty insignificant annoyance.

User avatar
gilo
Posts: 619
Joined: 24 Apr 2006, 20:22
Location: By the beach. ok the main road

Post by gilo » 11 May 2006, 19:05

No, on the whole the work of those challenging the serious issues of oppression and discrimination has been undermined by this debate.

User avatar
Rex_Mundi
Posts: 93
Joined: 08 Mar 2006, 08:55
Location: portobello

Post by Rex_Mundi » 11 May 2006, 20:32

Dadaist wrote:
I'd like to see some examples of pc going nuts and see what I think of them.
Exactly, dear boy. :wink:
[b]Cogito, ergo sum[/b]

User avatar
Epykat
Posts: 3915
Joined: 04 Dec 2003, 22:35
Location: Portobello, Edinburgh
Contact:

Post by Epykat » 11 May 2006, 22:03

An example of PC going nuts is when you are banned from using the phrase "brainstorming" and have to replace it with "information shower" in case you offend people with epilepsy :shock: . TRUE!
Enough of your nonsense - get back to the Play Pen!

seanie
Posts: 2313
Joined: 03 Feb 2006, 20:43
Location: Brighton Place

Post by seanie » 11 May 2006, 22:39

When you were told this did you tell them not to be so silly?

User avatar
Epykat
Posts: 3915
Joined: 04 Dec 2003, 22:35
Location: Portobello, Edinburgh
Contact:

Post by Epykat » 11 May 2006, 22:49

seanie wrote:When you were told this did you tell them not to be so silly?
I told them they needed their head examined :lol:

Or how about no crosses on the hot cross buns in case it offended those of us who are not Christian? :? . Also true!
Enough of your nonsense - get back to the Play Pen!

seanie
Posts: 2313
Joined: 03 Feb 2006, 20:43
Location: Brighton Place

Post by seanie » 11 May 2006, 22:53

Could I ask the context in which you were instructed the term was banned?

User avatar
Epykat
Posts: 3915
Joined: 04 Dec 2003, 22:35
Location: Portobello, Edinburgh
Contact:

Post by Epykat » 11 May 2006, 22:59

seanie wrote:Could I ask the context in which you were instructed the term was banned?
The Brainstorming one? It was in a document which went round work so presumably the Council? Don't you believe me? :wink:
Enough of your nonsense - get back to the Play Pen!

User avatar
Poppy
Posts: 3483
Joined: 08 Feb 2004, 12:02

Post by Poppy » 11 May 2006, 23:16

This in Wikepedia:
The story that an organization has banned the word 'brainstorm', in favor of 'thought shower', due to its connection with epilepsy, appears regularly in British newspapers. Invariably, it is given as an example of 'political correctness gone mad'. One example can be found in the Observer, 26 June 2005 regarding the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment in Belfast. Another example is the Telegraph, 26 April 2003 regarding trainee teachers.

A survey in 2005 by the UK charity National Society for Epilepsy found that 93 per cent of people with the condition do not find the word brainstorming offensive. http://www.epilepsynse.org.uk/pages/wha ... cfm?id=271

Another UK epilepsy charity, Epilepsy Action, discuss this in their Epilepsy Facts, Figures and Terminology web page. An informal survey by Epilepsy Action in their journal Epilepsy Today (Issue 73, October 2005) confirmed the NSE findings.

seanie
Posts: 2313
Joined: 03 Feb 2006, 20:43
Location: Brighton Place

Post by seanie » 11 May 2006, 23:29

I'm skeptical.

The "brainstorming" thing I've heard before.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainstorming
The story that an organization has banned the word 'brainstorm', in favor of 'thought shower', due to its connection with epilepsy, appears regularly in British newspapers. Invariably, it is given as an example of 'political correctness gone mad'. One example can be found in the Observer, 26 June 2005 regarding the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment in Belfast. Another example is the Telegraph, 26 April 2003 regarding trainee teachers.

A survey in 2005 by the UK charity National Society for Epilepsy found that 93 per cent of people with the condition do not find the word brainstorming offensive.

Another UK epilepsy charity, Epilepsy Action, discuss this in their Epilepsy Facts, Figures and Terminology web page. An informal survey by Epilepsy Action in their journal Epilepsy Today (Issue 73, October 2005) confirmed the NSE findings.
I don't see it much differently from the occassional half-wit that objects to doors being opened from them.

Somewhere, someone, got it into their head that "brainstorming" might be offensive. Others, anxious not to cause unintentional offence, went along with it. But this is not some oppressive, pervasive , ubiquitous movement. It's the occassional isolated small number of misguided but well intentioned people who've got the wrong end of the stick.

And these examples are held to ridicule by just about everyone. Which is one reason it's so enjoyable to complain about Political Correctness. Whilst people may be unsure what brand of Political Correctness you're complaining about they're usually sure Political Correctness is a bad thing. Fearless uncompromising denunciations of Political Correctness are generally greeted with approval. You're usually on pretty safe ground.

Political Correctness is not the orthodoxy.

Complaining about Political Correctness is.

seanie
Posts: 2313
Joined: 03 Feb 2006, 20:43
Location: Brighton Place

Post by seanie » 11 May 2006, 23:34

Beaten to a quote. Damn.

Telegraph Article
The term "brainstorming" has become the latest target of political correctness, according to a charity.

Trainee teachers are being told to avoid the word for fear of offending pupils with epilepsy. Instead they are being advised to use "word storm" or "thought shower".

However, charities working with epilepsy say "brainstorming" is not offensive. "We had several inquiries from teachers about it so we did a survey of our residential home," said Gemma Baxter from the National Society for Epilepsy.
The Teacher Training Agency said it was not responsible for the suggestion that students avoid the word.

"We are responsible for overseeing the general quality of the courses provided by universities and colleges and we don't get involved in the minutiae of what they teach."
So who banned it?

User avatar
Pal of Porty
Posts: 2136
Joined: 30 Sep 2004, 13:41
Location: Old Folks Home
Contact:

Post by Pal of Porty » 12 May 2006, 00:48

seanie wrote:...Somewhere, someone, got it into their head that "brainstorming" might be offensive. Others, anxious not to cause unintentional offence, went along with it. But this is not some oppressive, pervasive , ubiquitous movement. It's the occassional isolated small number of misguided but well intentioned people who've got the wrong end of the stick....
I agree totally with the sentiments of the paragraph but challenge the use of "well intentioned". Well intentioned to what and to whom?

This is a manifestation of the type of thinking that stops schools sports day from being competetive because you know what - the fast guy might win. What a disaster - he has been bottom of the class academically all year and when it comes to something he can do - he cannot even get his day in the sun!
Justice delayed is justice denied.

User avatar
ali
Posts: 846
Joined: 15 Jun 2003, 09:15

Post by ali » 12 May 2006, 07:34

Epykat wrote:
Or how about no crosses on the hot cross buns in case it offended those of us who are not Christian? :? . Also true!
Have you got an example of any baker who actually removed the crosses from the buns??

You may have heard about this but did it actually happen? What do you mean by "true"?

I'm with Dada and Seanie on this one. A lot of the complaining about "PC" comes from the same lot who propogate myths about the EU -Check this lot out from a dedicated anti-european!!!

http://www.kc3.co.uk/~dt/euromyths.htm

xxxx
Posts: 332
Joined: 10 Oct 2003, 14:03

Post by xxxx » 12 May 2006, 08:09

Pal of Porty wrote: I agree totally with the sentiments of the paragraph but challenge the use of "well intentioned". Well intentioned to what and to whom?
Well intentioned towards the people they might feel would be offended of course
This is a manifestation of the type of thinking that stops schools sports day from being competetive because you know what - the fast guy might win. What a disaster - he has been bottom of the class academically all year and when it comes to something he can do - he cannot even get his day in the sun!
Can school sports days be truly competitive?I For competition to occur you have to have a group with similar potential at least. The same people excelled at their individual sports every year at my school, so it wasn't really much of a contest.
As to the good at sports/bad at books type you refer to, that's a bit of a stereotype itself. Was menzies campbell a bottom of the class type?

As to the main topic, if there has been a pc movement, then more power to their elbow, making people think about what they say cannot be a bad thing.

Noone could get away with, 'If you want a nigger for a neighbour, vote labour' or 'Simon Hughes, the straight candidate' anymore in campaign literature.

Being 'un pc' is merely a convenient way of proclaiming your individuality without having to actually think for yourself.

User avatar
ali
Posts: 846
Joined: 15 Jun 2003, 09:15

Post by ali » 12 May 2006, 08:20

xxxx wrote:

Being 'un pc' is merely a convenient way of proclaiming your individuality without having to actually think for yourself.
:shock: :o :?

*stands back in order to make room for pal of porty*

User avatar
Dave Connelly
Posts: 258
Joined: 18 Apr 2003, 15:31
Location: Portobello
Contact:

Post by Dave Connelly » 12 May 2006, 08:28

Two things I would like to mention. (From work which I wont go into)

1.

I am not aloowed to call a black person Black. I have several friends who are black who get offended if you call them anything esle but black. I am not sure what the PC term is this week. As far as I am concerned they are black.

Are we white/pink/Cocassion? what is the correct term.

2.

I am not allowed to say Lassie or laddie, which I think is an affront to my own cultural heritage.


I also think we are living in a society where no one wants to take responsibility for their own actions and who want to blame everyone else.

We are about 10 years behing the USA in this.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
<a href="http://www.portygreenkeepers.org.uk">SAVE LOTS OF GREEN</a>

User avatar
ali
Posts: 846
Joined: 15 Jun 2003, 09:15

Post by ali » 12 May 2006, 08:31

Dave Connelly wrote:I am not aloowed to call a black person Black. We are about 10 years behing the USA in this.
Who is it that is stopping you, Dave?? :shock:

User avatar
Rex_Mundi
Posts: 93
Joined: 08 Mar 2006, 08:55
Location: portobello

Post by Rex_Mundi » 12 May 2006, 08:31

Thats more like it everyone,

Encore, Encore :twisted:
[b]Cogito, ergo sum[/b]

xxxx
Posts: 332
Joined: 10 Oct 2003, 14:03

Post by xxxx » 12 May 2006, 08:42

Dave Connelly wrote:Two things I would like to mention. (From work which I wont go into)

1.

I am not aloowed to call a black person Black. I have several friends who are black who get offended if you call them anything esle but black. I am not sure what the PC term is this week. As far as I am concerned they are black.

Are we white/pink/Cocassion? what is the correct term.

2.

I am not allowed to say Lassie or laddie, which I think is an affront to my own cultural heritage.


I also think we are living in a society where no one wants to take responsibility for their own actions and who want to blame everyone else.

We are about 10 years behing the USA in this.
If things are so bad, why don't you go on strike then? Its the bravest of individuals who make the first stand.

User avatar
Dadaist
Posts: 6159
Joined: 05 Jul 2004, 19:42
Location: on the fringes of Portobello

Post by Dadaist » 12 May 2006, 08:49

pc dc :) wrote:I am not allowed to say Lassie or laddie, which I think is an affront to my own cultural heritage.
I can understand that one. I guess one of the reasons that professional standards and uniformity of conduct have evolved and progressed in the first place is that, when providing a service, the end users expect to be treated the same way regardless - in effect they are being served by the badge of office as opposed to the person wearing it.

If I was a US citizen and was arrested by the police in Mexico, whilst it may be an affront to the respective officers' cultural heritage not to refer to me as being a "gringo", I may have recourse to offence and hence grounds to complain due to the fact that the word can be defined as offensive slang by me, even if they didn't mean anything by it.

In this instance, a professional standard which banned the officer from calling me a "gringo" would serve to protect me from offence *and* the officer concerned from complaint.

User avatar
Bob Jefferson
Posts: 6212
Joined: 11 Dec 2004, 21:16
Location: Planet Porty
Contact:

Post by Bob Jefferson » 12 May 2006, 08:57

I'm for political correctness and, as others have suggested, I think a lot of the sillier stories are simply urban myths or isolated cases of nonsense that no-one would support.

I'm also for the 'nanny state' generally. I think we need instruction and guidance in many areas of life and I think we should start by bringing back the Public Information films.

User avatar
Poppy
Posts: 3483
Joined: 08 Feb 2004, 12:02

Post by Poppy » 12 May 2006, 09:26

What hacks me off is when people decide things are 'offensive' to certain other people when those other people are perfectly capable of deciding if it or is not themselves (see brainstorming and the Epilepsy Society above). That is so patronising and that in itself is "offensive".

User avatar
gilo
Posts: 619
Joined: 24 Apr 2006, 20:22
Location: By the beach. ok the main road

Post by gilo » 12 May 2006, 09:35

Dave Connelly wrote:I am not aloowed to call a black person Black.
Why's that?

User avatar
Bob Jefferson
Posts: 6212
Joined: 11 Dec 2004, 21:16
Location: Planet Porty
Contact:

Post by Bob Jefferson » 12 May 2006, 09:46

Poppy wrote:What hacks me off is when people decide things are 'offensive' to certain other people when those other people are perfectly capable of deciding if it or is not themselves (see brainstorming and the Epilepsy Society above). That is so patronising and that in itself is "offensive".
Agree, but surely it's better to be well-intentioned and occasionally over-sensitive to the feelings of others, in contrast to those who pride themselves on their 'honesty' (insensitivity) and proclaim virtue in calling a spade a spade.

Post Reply