political correctness ? what did it do to you ?

Don Bosco

That's really funny. Anyway, I think you guys need to get a life. I mean obsessing about the names in math questions? :rolleyes:

Anyway, I want you guys to tell me what is wrong with saying 'a large person' instead of a fattie, a black/asian person instead of a coon, wog or nigger because that's what I understand political correctness to be. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

"Civilisation is courtesy". Sensetivity is courtesy. "Political correctness" is sensetivity. "Political correctness" is courtesy. Civilisation.

Reply 22

mipmapped

13

Names like John and Paul aren't native to Britain. Why have them?

Reply 23

rave_on

positive discrimination is incredibly dumb. how can any discrimination be 'positive'? its just discriminating against different people, but that doesnt matter?

Reply 24

L i b

19

cottonmouth

No Tehjonny, that painfully sad, gut-wrenching thing is that most of you weren't joking at all. There has actually been a thread about the use of non-English names, and it had quite a few responses. Utter patheticness in its extreme. You are all a bunch of very sad, angry, bitter people if you actually give a horned and winged shit about the names of people on a maths test. When i do a maths test, i don't scrupulously analyse the amount of non-English names and then test them against the real population ratio. I tend to just anser the questions. GET LIVES!

It's not in the least bit sad. It's merely a clever observation at the ridiculous situation that someone actually thought 'oh, I'm writing a maths textbook, better err on the side of being politically correct'. Only a complete dullard could fail to notice this sort of thing - as for being important, of course it isn't, but considering half of 'Chat' is filled with trivial nonsense about cheese melting in toastie machines etc, I hardly think it's something to go off on one about.

Giliwoo

"Civilisation is courtesy". Sensetivity is courtesy. "Political correctness" is sensetivity. "Political correctness" is courtesy. Civilisation.

Load of bull****. Patronising nonsense should not be mistaken for 'sensetivity'. I wouldn't want to have some bloody do-gooder being sensitive to me just because of the colour of my skin; I doubt anyone named Abdul or Raji does either - and if they do, then they're clearly a bit feeble minded.

mipmapped

Names like John and Paul aren't native to Britain. Why have them?

I think you'd struggle to find a name that is native to Britain.

Reply 25

D00

13

Political correctness endangers free speach, as limits are placed on public debate, especially in universities and political forums (just like this one, I got warned for my beleif on immigrants)

I don't like the idea of someone saying, "You are not allowed to say that because some people can get offended" It's mostly the minority that is usually offended, but who cares? Majority comes over minority.

Reply 26

D00

Majority comes over minority.

Rubbish. Liberal democracy: no tyranny of majority. Sufficient offence can cause social discord. Government must avoid this. Let social pressure (as "political correctness" is) do what legislation can not: prevent social discord.

Reply 27

LibertineNorth

Patronising nonsense should not be mistaken for 'sensetivity'.
Patronising according to your definition? It makes a social statement. It reflects society as it is. This makes what were once foreign elements in our society, appear much less alien in the broader social context.

I wouldn't want to have some bloody do-gooder being sensitive to me just because of the colour of my skin

Well speak for yourself then. You are not the measure of all things.

and if they do, then they're clearly a bit feeble minded.

Well that's a personal judgement. Begs the question.

Reply 28

Giliwoo

Patronising according to your definition? It makes a social statement. It reflects society as it is. This makes what were once foreign elements in our society, appear much less alien in the broader social context.

Exactly, a bad thing. its social engineering driven by political correctness. You can't implant "ethnic" names into our textbooks and we will suddenly consider them "normal" names. We aren't stupid. Its obvious that this is multiculturalist manipulation.

Anyone for a book burning? :biggrin:

(joke btw)

Reply 29

Zebedee

Exactly, a bad thing. its social engineering...
Every law passed is "social engineering": why single out this form as "a bad thing"?

Its obvious that this is multiculturalist manipulation.

I have to ask, "so what"? Once more I have to say, these are English poems.

Reply 30

Giliwoo

Every law passed is "social engineering": why single out this form as "a bad thing"?

I have to ask, "so what"? Once more I have to say, these are English poems.

Have you got this mixed up with the poem thread, this is about political correctness in general - in this case textbooks.

I don't care that much, its just some names. But it is representative of a larger phenomonon. I consider this is a bad form because i reject the idea of multiculturalism because it is being forced upon us by government policy and i think alot of brits aren't too keen. Just an opinion at the end of the day.

Reply 31

Zebedee

Have you got this mixed up with the poem thread, this is about political correctness in general - in this case textbooks.
Oops. My bad.

I consider this is a bad form because I reject the idea of multiculturalism because it is being forced upon us by government policy

Do I take that to mean you reject it on the basis that it is being forced upon us, or on the basis of its own merits/faults?

Reply 32

Giliwoo

Do I take that to mean you reject it on the basis that it is being forced upon us, or on the basis of its own merits/faults?

Both. I think having multiple cultures in a single nation is a reciple for disaster because it will lead to segregation and social tensions. When we could just avoid it alltogether.

I admit it has good sides, but most multiculturalist seem to gloss over the bad side effects. Such as how people are meant to feel like they belong in a culture that is very different from their own. They are blatantly going to stick to what they know and that is what we see in britain today where there are ghetto areas of our major cities.

Then theres the fact its forced upon us, anybody that disagrees is called a racist and discussion is thus stifled. Political correctness is to blame for that.

Reply 33

Zebedee

Both. I think having multiple cultures in a single nation is a reciple for disaster because it will lead to segregation and social tensions.

I see no necessary link. Intolerance and fear of ethnic eclipse, cause segregation and social tensions.

When we could just avoid it alltogether.

How? (That's an invitational "how", not a mocking one).

They are blatantly going to stick to what they know and that is what we see in britain today where there are ghetto areas of our major cities.

Go to bebo and hi5 and you will be surprised how shockingly "normal" Britain's ethnic minorities can be. Indeed, go to any British school or university and you will see the same.

Then theres the fact its forced upon us, anybody that disagrees is called a racist and discussion is thus stifled. Political correctness is to blame for that.

Taxes are forced on us too, as are seatbelts. How is PC forced, I must ask? There is no law or commandment enjoining us to be PC. There are laws that prevent us denying others the rights we enjoy on the basis of skin coloue, but none that per se require us to be PC. Political correctness can't be said to be the reason why the debate is stifled. The reason iit is difficult to debate is that unfortunately many people who denounce it are racist and say horrible things in the course of the debate. Not all, of course. It really ain't such a bad thing. It's not done too much harm in the US.

Reply 34

Giliwoo

How? (That's an invitational "how", not a mocking one).

Restricting immigration immediately.

Go to bebo and hi5 and you will be surprised how shockingly "normal" Britain's ethnic minorities can be. Indeed, go to any British school or university and you will see the same.

I diddn't say it applied to all, evidently those at university are going to be the better integrated of them. It doesn't stop what you see in the cities as ghettos from being reality.

How is PC forced, I must ask? There is no law or commandment enjoining us to be PC. There are laws that prevent us denying others the rights we enjoy on the basis of skin coloue, but none that per se require us to be PC. Political correctness can't be said to be the reason why the debate is stifled. say horrible things in the course of the debate. Not all, of course. It really ain't such a bad thing. It's not done too much harm in the US.

Your right that theres no pc law, its just done on the quiet from the way the government opperated (fast track mp's, positive action, "representative bbc",), then theres the media propaganda from the likes of the bbc whereby multicultural issues are allways seen in a good light.

The reason its not done much harm in the US, is the US is by defintiion almost a melting pot of cultures. Whereas britain has a culture allready, one that we are proud off. The US had a .."free market" style of immigration where everything is just thrown into the pot. but for us it would be better to decide whether immigration is really needed and if so what would be the best form. At the moment its fairly open door which has all sorts of problems.

Reply 35

Zebedee

Restricting immigration immediately.
That would leave us with a big problem. No. What should actually be done is to force THEM to integrate. But we shouldn't pretend they don't exist. Indeed, "normalising" their presense in our society will ease that process. This is why I have no strong feelings about putting "ethnic" names in text books.

Reply 36

Giliwoo

That would leave us with a big problem. No. What should actually be done is to force THEM to integrate. But we shouldn't pretend they don't exist. Indeed, "normalising" their presense in our society will ease that process. This is why I have no strong feelings about putting "ethnic" names in text books.

Normalising their presence? what if majority of brits don't want their presence? or resent their impact on society?

"Normalising presense" is just another word for propaganda. it doesn't work either because its transparent and actually fuels the anger of british people that see their native culture being threatened.

Reply 37

Morbo

17

All this talk of restricting immigration is rather trying to shut the stable door after the horse has got in...so to speak.

And when the people in this discussion who are saying what "Brits" would like, I am taking this to mean white ethnic British people. You must also consider the opinions of the vast numbers of non-white Brits who are, whether you like it or not, here to stay and thus have a say in the future of the country. I doubt the swathes of people of Asian and African descent would be in favour of restricting immigration.

Multiculturalism has already happened. You can't do anything to reverse it, so you may as well embrace it. Unless you support Nationalist policies, which most would say are racist.

Reply 38

Zebedee

Normalising their presence? what if majority of brits don't want their presence? or resent their impact on society?

"Normalising presense" is just another word for propaganda. it doesn't work either because its transparent and actually fuels the anger of british people that see their native culture being threatened.

How do you speak for the majority? Native culture being threatened? Come on! I didn't find "Normalising presence" in the thesaurus, under propaganda by the way, and I challenge your interpretation of the phrase. If the presence of an "alien" element is not normalised, it will remain as an excrescence upon its host. Call it propaganda if you will, but it is essential in forming public perceptions of these people who are so maligned.

Reply 39