Politically Correct
Comments
-
-
alfablue wrote:Batman fans (and probably Robin. . . always wondered about those two) may object to such an allegation.
Batman is racist. He's had at least four robins and not one of them is from an ethnicity other than Caucasian....
Then there are his villains as well, the vast majority are caucasian as well (notice I haven't used the term white to identify race, oh yes).... Batman is not only a racist but fights crime on a discriminatory basis the B@st@ard, glad he's dead!Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
Eau Rouge wrote:I like political correctness, I think it's a powerfull force for good.
No, IMO its an excuse. A pathetic list of do's and don't's, can and can't says with no real thoughtout reasoning or a valid explanation of why we should or shouldn't. Being overly PC only serves to distance people further apart as oppose to bringing them closer through understanding.
What would be more effective is actually learning and understanding other cultures and social practices with an open mind and using that experience/knowledge to interact, succesfully, with people from differt social/cultural backgrounds.
Someoen plus one me!Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:Eau Rouge wrote:I like political correctness, I think it's a powerfull force for good.
No, IMO its an excuse. A pathetic list of do's and don't's, can and can't says with no real thoughtout reasoning or a valid explanation of why we should or shouldn't. Being overly PC only serves to distance people further apart as oppose to bringing them closer through understanding.
What would be more effective is actually learning and understanding other cultures and social practices with an open mind and using that experience/knowledge to interact, succesfully, with people from differt social/cultural backgrounds.
Someoen plus one me!
What about referring to Agatha Christie's "Ten Little Niggers" as "And Then There Were None" (or, indeed "Ten Little Indians")? Reasonable, or "PC gone mad"? After all, "Ten Little Niggers" was its original title in the UK.0 -
It appears that political correctness is clearly a substitute for common sense and simply knowing when something is offensive.... :roll:Agent57 wrote:What about referring to Agatha Christie's "Ten Little Niggers" as "And Then There Were None" (or, indeed "Ten Little Indians")? Reasonable, or "PC gone mad"? After all, "Ten Little Niggers" was its original title in the UK.
The use of the term Nigger is not politically incorrect, overly or otherwise. It's racist. Understanding Afro/Carribean culture/history, where and how the word originated would easily shed light on this. - which was my point in my original post on this matter.
Agatha Christie's "Ten Little Niggers" isn't merely a politically incorrect title. Its a racist one. Lets call it what it is, and explain why it is, instead of hiding behind the safety of the term 'politically in/correct'.
In fact classing under the banner of 'not PC' is arguably, in and of itself, offensive.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
So it's therefore "politically correct" to call it "And Then There Were None", rather than "Ten Little Niggers". If not PC, what?0
-
Suddenly this thread has legs
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
I don't think political correctness is a bad thing as such. Way too many people in this world have a real lack of empathy and I think political correctness stemmed from a powerful few trying to impose some potential for empathy on parts of the population who have real trouble thinking about anyone other than themselves.
That's where the problem comes because you can't impose feelings/thoughts/ideas on people and if you do try you'll only end up offending some people anyhow!0 -
I got really fed up of PC.....
... so I bought a Mac! --
Burls Ti Tourer for Tarmac, Saracen aluminium full suss for trails0 -
I do wonder why you've chosen to use the example you have...
Sigh, why did I even bother to post in this thread... I'll never learn. OK here goes...Agent57 wrote:So it's therefore "politically correct" to call it "And Then There Were None", rather than "Ten Little Niggers". If not PC, what?
Common freaking sense.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:I do wonder why you've chosen to use the example you have...
Sigh, why did I even bother to post in this thread... I'll never learn. OK here goes...Agent57 wrote:So it's therefore "politically correct" to call it "And Then There Were None", rather than "Ten Little Niggers". If not PC, what?
Common freaking sense.
I agree. However, if that's the title of the book, that's the title of the book. Calling it something else "so as not to cause offence" is, in my book, political correctness. Like calling dwarves "little people", fat people "overweight", chairwomen "chairpeople", whatever.
I chose the example because it was the first one that came to mind when I started trying to think of an example of something which makes sense in the world we live in, but ultimately is political correctness. IMO, of course.0 -
Agent57 wrote:I agree. However, if that's the title of the book, that's the title of the book. Calling it something else "so as not to cause offence" is, in my book, political correctness. Like calling dwarves "little people", fat people "overweight", chairwomen "chairpeople", whatever.
I chose the example because it was the first one that came to mind when I started trying to think of an example of something which makes sense in the world we live in, but ultimately is political correctness. IMO, of course.
That's the most ridiculous thing I've read.
Lets just agree to disagree.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:Agent57 wrote:I agree. However, if that's the title of the book, that's the title of the book. Calling it something else "so as not to cause offence" is, in my book, political correctness. Like calling dwarves "little people", fat people "overweight", chairwomen "chairpeople", whatever.
I chose the example because it was the first one that came to mind when I started trying to think of an example of something which makes sense in the world we live in, but ultimately is political correctness. IMO, of course.
That's the most ridiculous thing I've read.
Lets just agree to disagree.
Well it is the title of the book. The book was written in 1939, referring to a poem written in 1868. The book doesn't actually have any black people in it, it was just an allusion to what was presumably a piece of popular culture in 1939.
I think it would be more sensible to look at as an interesting cultural artifact and an insight into a different age, rather than screaming RACIST, and attempting to judge people of a different time and values by a narrow right-on modern mindset.
Obviously nobody would call a book that now, because it's not language that's used today, but then neither is Shakespearian English, but that's not to say we need to 'correct' his language either.0 -
thelawnet wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:Agent57 wrote:I agree. However, if that's the title of the book, that's the title of the book. Calling it something else "so as not to cause offence" is, in my book, political correctness. Like calling dwarves "little people", fat people "overweight", chairwomen "chairpeople", whatever.
I chose the example because it was the first one that came to mind when I started trying to think of an example of something which makes sense in the world we live in, but ultimately is political correctness. IMO, of course.
That's the most ridiculous thing I've read.
Lets just agree to disagree.
Well it is the title of the book. The book was written in 1939, referring to a poem written in 1868. The book doesn't actually have any black people in it, it was just an allusion to what was presumably a piece of popular culture in 1939.
I think it would be more sensible to look at as an interesting cultural artifact and an insight into a different age, rather than screaming RACIST, and attempting to judge people of a different time and values by a narrow right-on modern mindset.
Obviously nobody would call a book that now, because it's not language that's used today, but then neither is Shakespearian English, but that's not to say we need to 'correct' his language either.
If nobody would call a book that now where's the problem?
(Oh, and ask the Jews what they think of "The Merchant of Venice" if that's the best argument you can muster)0 -
I think DonDaddyD mis-read my motives with regard to citing the book I did, assigning a subtext which wasn't there. I sent him a PM to set things straight, but he hasn't replied so I guess he's quite annoyed.
Anyway, I only sought to illustrate that political correctness isn't always a bad thing, and the principles behind it are sound. Maybe not the wisest choice of example, so I apologise to anyone else I offended with my argument.0 -
Agent57 wrote:Assigning a subtext which wasn't there.
I think this is the more insidious thing about labelling things, deciding whether or not its is acceptable by what assumptions are made about it and the proponents, all of which only serve to shut down any form of rational debate or thought.
But its nothing new, the modern era might have the USA's culture wars and "liberal/right-wing journalists/media" but more recently there was "jewish physics" as Relativity was labelled by the Nazis (I believe Psychiatry got a similar label), communist sympthisers (fellow travellers) as labelled by McCarthy, go back further and you'd be accused of being a Jacobite if they didn't like what you were saying or the context.'Twas Mulga Bill, from Eaglehawk, that caught the cycling craze....0 -
Am I the only one to think women are just fecking nut jobs?Fixed gear for wet weather / hairy roadie for posing in the sun.
What would Thora Hurd do?0 -
- 2023 Vielo V+1
- 2022 Canyon Aeroad CFR
- 2020 Canyon Ultimate CF SLX
- Strava
- On the Strand
- Crown Stables
0 -
No, I'm SEXIEST!0
-
I'm not sure that 'political correctness' even really exists as the kind of tangible policy that people sometimes seem to rail against. Bit like health and safety (gone mad)- it's a mix of individuals making unilateral decisions (e.g. Biondino's librarians) and tabloid/urban myth (schools being told to call Christmas something else etc.) or something in between.0
-
Would it have been ok if Agatha Christie was a black lady?
*sprints out of room*0 -
I tend to the view that PC is broadly a good thing - at its heart it's an attempt to avoid language that may be/have been in common use but actually causes some offence to groups in our society. That strikes me as a thoroughly good intention. Examples might be using
black rather than coloured*
gay rather than queer
* note that for my grandparents' generation, "coloured" was a more polite term than "black". When they used "coloured" them intended no offence, they just did not understand the subtext. The general switch from "coloured" to "black" strikes me as a classic example of thoruoghly positive political correctness.
The problem with PC is when people take it too far, avoiding language becuase it is perhaps "not inclusive" but doesn't actually cause offence. I think avoiding the word "Christmas" when describing the traditional British December holiday period might be an example of that. I THINK that most non-Christian Brits are pretty relaxed about the fact that they live in country whose cultural origins/traditions are predominantly Christian in character.
But the overshoots of PC probably should be seen as "too much of a (broadly) good thing".0 -
wantaway wrote:not sure it can be used to describe anyone unless you happen to be a lazy tabloid journalist.
There are hard working tabloid journalists :?: :?: :?:0 -
You know what I hate - when I'm in Israel and it's all Passover this and Yom Kippur that. How dare they be so insensitive to my non-Jewish sentiments! It's almost as bad as that time in Mecca when I really needed the loo so I went for a pee against some black thing - apparently it has some kind of meaning to them but I'm not a Muslim so I don't see the problem.0
-
thelawnet wrote:I think it would be more sensible to look at as an interesting cultural artifact and an insight into a different age, rather than screaming RACIST, and attempting to judge people of a different time and values by a narrow right-on modern mindset..
So those who are against racism scream RACIST; they are narrow and right-on. Well unless you have a "narrow right-on mindset" are we to assume you are racist? Or are you just being a tit?
PC is something that small minded bigots who work in local government, the police, etc. fall back on to deflect attention from their incompetence or so that they can avoid action. It is enacted by people that do not understand why "nigger" or "chav" or "Paki" is offensive. It is also soemthing that the right wing press like to use to hit left wing tree hugging liberals with, even though we mainly think PC is w.ank and a lame excuse.
If a book came out called "ten little fuc.king cun.ts" would you expect this title to be used? No - no more than "ten little niggers" - it's just an offensive term. PC doesn;t come into it.0 -
Edit: Actually its not worth it but to simply say:Porgy wrote:If a book came out called "ten little fuc.king cun.ts" would you expect this title to be used? No - no more than "ten little niggers" - it's just an offensive term. PC doesn;t come into it.
+1!Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
Porgy wrote:If a book came out called "ten little fuc.king cun.ts" would you expect this title to be used?
Yes. Yes I would.
And why wouldn't it be? There have been books published in the past decade with "cunt" in the title. You can find two examples on amazon.co.uk.0 -
I really think a few people need to read some history books and educate themselves before voicing opinions.Agent57 wrote:Porgy wrote:If a book came out called "ten little fuc.king cun.ts" would you expect this title to be used?
Yes. Yes I would.
And why wouldn't it be? There have been books published in the past decade with "****" in the title. You can find two examples on amazon.co.uk.
Your missing the point. Do you know what the word means and what it truly represents? I ask this because what you're advocating is the public use of a word designed and created to express hatred towards a particualr ethnicity.
You don't need political correctness to tell you doing so is wrong, no matter the era.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0
