Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It's PC gone mad, gone mad.


    Either: no-one actually says you can't say those things you're just making it up. Of course you can say "that black man" :facepalm2:


    Or: the phrase is actually genuinely offensive due to its historic context. Is it really that difficult to show a little sensitivity by not saying a handful of words with unpleasant connotations? It's not like there's a lot of them.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by whythehellnot)
    I'm not sure I agree with you. You can't speak for society.
    ..What, and you can?

    (Original post by whythehellnot)
    Yet when I do so, people often give me disapproving looks.
    If the tactlessness in your original post extends to how you talk in real life then I'm unsurprised.

    The word 'black' is used widely by the government, by various inclusive institutions (e.g. Black History Week), by charities (e.g. 100 Black Men of London), collectives and groups (e.g. Black Women's Rape Action), and by even the most liberal newspapers. My student union just did a 'black and ethnic minorities' week, with an event called 'Black by popular demand'. It just doesn't make sense to deny it's widely accepted- all the evidence points to the contrary.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by whythehellnot)
    I want some justification for why I get disapproving looks for using basic words and methods for distinguishing between two or more people. It's pathetic, especially as I very rarely intend on offending people. I maintain that the real offence should come from the way in which the word is used, not the word itself. Yet, that doesn't seem to be the case from my experience. I don't like being told what I can and can't say by 'the wider society' through social contract.
    Well think about it logiaclly, if everyone here is saying that they use the word 'black', 'white' and so on with out any issues but you are the only person that gets dirty looks for using the word then obviously the problem is the way in which you are using the word. Obviously the context of the way in which you say it seems to be offensive, even if you don't intend it to be. For example:

    "What's the name of that black/white guy that sits at the front of the class?"
    This would be perfectly acceptable.

    "Ohh that guy thinks he is brilliant because he's black/white"
    This would be deemed to be offensive (not necessarily racist)
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Political correctness means that everyone should be equal and this means that places like Qatar with such a rich and successful history of football can get to host the greatest football tournament on earth in temperatures of 46°C
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by whythehellnot)
    So I've been thinking, what is the deal with political correctness these days?

    It seems like as quickly as our language is growing, it's being eroded by over sensitive morons who take offence at something as ludicrous as coughing in the wrong pitch.:eek: -I know right.

    Now, don't get me wrong, I can understand how the use of certain words or phrases could be construed as offensive, I just take issue with the sheer scale that this crap is taken to. To be PC in today's world seems to involve taking a 'neo-I-don't-want-to-even-risk-being-seen-as-derogatory-in-any-way' kind of stance which, in turn, often means taking something as simple as an observation and trying to remain neutral with it.

    For instance, it is apparently completely wrong to say

    - The black man/lady
    - The white man/lady
    - The Half-Cast man/lady

    Now, I'm sorry...but these things are purely ways of distinguishing between certain types of people. Two Tom's, one is black one is white (you don't know their second name). If I want to describe them I could try and describe their hair style, maybe a hobby, or recall a certain event where the relevant Tom I'm trying to describe was present...OR I could say 'yeah, the white one'

    why is this perceived as anything different than 'yeah the one with blonde hair' 'or was it the one with red hair?'

    I can, at a push, extend an understanding nod to those in position of high power or influence who need to implicitly show their neutralness; but stay at home mums who can't say the word 'black' for the life of them need to grow the Duck up.


    Thoughts?
    We shouldn't be alienating these words. If anthing, we should be using them in a jokey context or just completely dismissing them as irrelevant.

    In a society that consists of a bunch of poncy middle class Liberals (those evil fiends) that gasp at the thought of using swear words or "racist", "homophobic" words and think it is a crime against God to smoke a cigarette in front of another human being, we have a real problem.

    For one thing we give those words power.

    Skinheads have a tool, a weapon, even at their disposal. They can create shock, horror, anger among individuals. They can transform this into negative energy. They can use it as hatred. They can use these words to alienate minorities.

    For another thing, people become disillusioned by political correctness. They don't want damned Liberal politicians dictating to them how it should/shouldn't be. It irritates people that they can't use words like "queer" in jokey contexts and they their anger gets redirected to those minorities we seek to protect. If we stopped alienating insults, I'm sure that "******" would just come to mean a "black man", no harm intended. Instead we would rather give boneheads a tool to use at their disposal :rolleyes:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Me)
    If we stopped alienating insults, I'm sure that "******"would just come to mean a "black man", no harm intended.
    Yet another example of political correctness gone mad :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by whythehellnot)
    haha 'people' meaning you? I'm sorry but you can't talk for all people everywhere ever. People like THAT annoy me.
    But by saying that PC groupthink has gone mad, you are also assuming the views of society. Most PC gone mad nonsense is based on assumptions and mistruths. For example: 'They are trying to ban ba ba black sheep'.

    1. Who are the mythical 'they' ? Its always some mysterious non-existant politically correct elite that apparently push PCness onto us.
    2. Ask any Primary school teacher if they have recieved an order telling them to sing 'rainbow sheep' and you find it is false.
    3. There is no government documentation on any such rule.

    Almost every time a 'political correctness gone mad' story comes up its published by a tabloid paper and turns out to be misinterpreted government policy. Take 'winterval' as another example. Every christmas it emerges that the PC elite are trying to ban christmas and replace it with 'winterval'. 'Winterval' was actually a large marketing campaign by Birmingham city council to encourage people to see all the events that were taking place over the winter period, many of which were not christmas related. Its complete crap, but the lazy journos recycle it every year.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AntiMonarchist)
    yeah i love it on question time when david dimbleby is trying to take a question from the only black guy in a room full of white people, and goes to extraordinary lengths not to say "the black man"
    haha yeah! :P

    Yes um, you in the black and white shirt, middle of the room, 7th row up
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    In a century, the humans of Earth will look back on the notion of political correctness and laugh whilst considering it as backwards and silly as some of the things we consider backwards and silly that the Victorians engaged in.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by spidergareth)
    But by saying that PC groupthink has gone mad, you are also assuming the views of society. Most PC gone mad nonsense is based on assumptions and mistruths. For example: 'They are trying to ban ba ba black sheep'.

    1. Who are the mythical 'they' ? Its always some mysterious non-existant politically correct elite that apparently push PCness onto us.
    2. Ask any Primary school teacher if they have recieved an order telling them to sing 'rainbow sheep' and you find it is false.
    3. There is no government documentation on any such rule.

    Almost every time a 'political correctness gone mad' story comes up its published by a tabloid paper and turns out to be misinterpreted government policy. Take 'winterval' as another example. Every christmas it emerges that the PC elite are trying to ban christmas and replace it with 'winterval'. 'Winterval' was actually a large marketing campaign by Birmingham city council to encourage people to see all the events that were taking place over the winter period, many of which were not christmas related. Its complete crap, but the lazy journos recycle it every year.
    Lol try explaining this to the anti pc brigade, it's like talking to a brick wall. For them if it's printed in the daily mail then it's a fact.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    We shouldn't be alienating these words. If anthing, we should be using them in a jokey context or just completely dismissing them as irrelevant.

    In a society that consists of a bunch of poncy middle class Liberals (those evil fiends) that gasp at the thought of using swear words or "racist", "homophobic" words and think it is a crime against God to smoke a cigarette in front of another human being, we have a real problem.

    For one thing we give those words power.

    Skinheads have a tool, a weapon, even at their disposal. They can create shock, horror, anger among individuals. They can transform this into negative energy. They can use it as hatred. They can use these words to alienate minorities.

    For another thing, people become disillusioned by political correctness. They don't want damned Liberal politicians dictating to them how it should/shouldn't be. It irritates people that they can't use words like "queer" in jokey contexts and they their anger gets redirected to those minorities we seek to protect. If we stopped alienating insults, I'm sure that "******" would just come to mean a "black man", no harm intended. Instead we would rather give boneheads a tool to use at their disposal :rolleyes:
    I see your point and I agree with it to a certain extent, but you also have to remember that casual racism/homophobia/sexism can also be just as damaging.

    For example; my cousin is Jewish. All over his facebook page there are jokey posts from his roomate saying things like "Give me back my beer, you theiving Jew." They are very close friends and it is obviously banter, although an outsider may be shocked initially.

    HOWEVER, another person tried to join in, assuming that these posts meant my cousin was very laidback and didn't really care about such things. Unfortunately for them, they were not nearly good enough friends and there was quite a backlash. Casual jokey racism is all fun and games until someone takes it too far/uses it in the wrong context.

    Not only that, but casual use of racist/demeaning terms is how racism can build up. Using the Jewish example again (sorry ), Hitler didn't come to power and make everyone hate the Jews. Jews had been persecuted by a minority for a few years, but on the whole were rather well liked. A gradual build up of mild racism steadily grew into the horrific anti-semitism. I believe it was Milgram's study into Obedience which showed that if people do small things and the intensity is gradually built up (in his case, the voltage of an electric shock) they will actually become so conditioned into thinking it's acceptable that they will do awful things; inthe experiment they were prepared to give lethal electric shocks. In Germany before the Nazis, there were comedy sketches and mild jokes, songs, plays and musicals in which the villian was often a Jew - and although people didn't think they were being racist and still maintained friendly relationships with their Jewish neighbours, it just meant they were more vulnerable to hate propaganda later.
    So, when some kid jokingly insults his friend or moans about something by calling him gay, he's actually subconciously associating homosexuality with something negative, and in the future could be more more vulnerable to homophobic propaganda or something similar.

    Sorry if I've over analysed that. I do see where you're coming from, and it has worked to an extent with the use of the word "******" although personally I still feel a little uncomfortable at times, but I can see that 90% of the time when it's used I can see it's harmless. In an ideal world, none of these terms would matter and nobody would be particularly upset by mere words.

    But then, an ideal world would be boring.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BlueJoker)
    I see your point and I agree with it to a certain extent, but you also have to remember that casual racism/homophobia/sexism can also be just as damaging.

    For example; my cousin is Jewish. All over his facebook page there are jokey posts from his roomate saying things like "Give me back my beer, you theiving Jew." They are very close friends and it is obviously banter, although an outsider may be shocked initially.

    HOWEVER, another person tried to join in, assuming that these posts meant my cousin was very laidback and didn't really care about such things. Unfortunately for them, they were not nearly good enough friends and there was quite a backlash. Casual jokey racism is all fun and games until someone takes it too far/uses it in the wrong context.

    Not only that, but casual use of racist/demeaning terms is how racism can build up. Using the Jewish example again (sorry ), Hitler didn't come to power and make everyone hate the Jews. Jews had been persecuted by a minority for a few years, but on the whole were rather well liked. A gradual build up of mild racism steadily grew into the horrific anti-semitism. I believe it was Milgram's study into Obedience which showed that if people do small things and the intensity is gradually built up (in his case, the voltage of an electric shock) they will actually become so conditioned into thinking it's acceptable that they will do awful things; inthe experiment they were prepared to give lethal electric shocks. In Germany before the Nazis, there were comedy sketches and mild jokes, songs, plays and musicals in which the villian was often a Jew - and although people didn't think they were being racist and still maintained friendly relationships with their Jewish neighbours, it just meant they were more vulnerable to hate propaganda later.
    So, when some kid jokingly insults his friend or moans about something by calling him gay, he's actually subconciously associating homosexuality with something negative, and in the future could be more more vulnerable to homophobic propaganda or something similar.

    Sorry if I've over analysed that. I do see where you're coming from, and it has worked to an extent with the use of the word "******" although personally I still feel a little uncomfortable at times, but I can see that 90% of the time when it's used I can see it's harmless. In an ideal world, none of these terms would matter and nobody would be particularly upset by mere words.

    But then, an ideal world would be boring.
    Ok, first of all, the Milgram Study was an obedience study. He tested how prone human beings were to obeying authority - and found that they were, generally speaking willing to shock another human (against their own will power) with gentle persuasion from an authoratitive figure (e.g. a scientist). I believe that human nature is shaped (though not completely) by its surroundings and this level of obedience is due to living in a hierarchical society (I don't know whether Milgram would agree). What's more is that what Milgram was studying was reasons for what caused the Holocaust. He expected to find Germans to be more obedient than the average US citizen but what he actually found was little difference and far higher levels of obedience than he had expected to find. Nonetheless, he did not think obedience alone was sufficient enough to explain the Holocaust, an historic example which he felt had highly complex circumstances surrounding its nature.

    Secondly, I do not advocate the complete degeneration of political correctness but I certainly feel it has gone far enough (possibly too far even) and I was merely trying to demonstrate how counter arguments to "let's restrict intolerance in society" can go much further and deeper than racism, homophobia and general prejudice. However, if the truth is known, I do not particularly lie more towards one side or another. I would say moderation is key. It is probably absurd to lean to far towards any one particular stance. In any case, I often find people who are too PC a bit overwhelming and not very likeable, always assuming the moral highground. Perhaps if we took the mick out of "whiteys" more often, that would balance things out a little
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by spidergareth)
    But by saying that PC groupthink has gone mad, you are also assuming the views of society. Most PC gone mad nonsense is based on assumptions and mistruths. For example: 'They are trying to ban ba ba black sheep'.

    1. Who are the mythical 'they' ? Its always some mysterious non-existant politically correct elite that apparently push PCness onto us.
    2. Ask any Primary school teacher if they have recieved an order telling them to sing 'rainbow sheep' and you find it is false.
    3. There is no government documentation on any such rule.

    Almost every time a 'political correctness gone mad' story comes up its published by a tabloid paper and turns out to be misinterpreted government policy. Take 'winterval' as another example. Every christmas it emerges that the PC elite are trying to ban christmas and replace it with 'winterval'. 'Winterval' was actually a large marketing campaign by Birmingham city council to encourage people to see all the events that were taking place over the winter period, many of which were not christmas related. Its complete crap, but the lazy journos recycle it every year.
    I'm not assuming anything, I've seen it in action. People on t.v avoiding simple describing words for fear of being misconstrued as racist or homophobic. I have evidence for my belief. To say no one cares it to speak for everyone, when of course, some people do care. I'm perfectly aware that the actual presence of Political correctness is blown out of proportion by some people, but exaggeration of something doesn't negate that original something. I'm not a fool who believes the introduction of the white board was due to PC policy or anything like that. I'm merely questioning and complaining about how SOME people take it too far.

    I find it interesting reading through this thread because there are three camps to choose from:

    1. I agree, political correctness is silly. (even if exaggerated)
    2. political correctness doesn't even exist, no one cares.
    3. Political correctness in its current state is correct.

    1. The fact that there's something to exaggerate about could suggest that their is at least some weight to these ideas. At least, it doesn't make it obvious that their is definitely no weight, especially when you see people from all over participating in careful sentence structure as to avoid being accused of something unruly.

    2. If it can be shown that someone somewhere cares, then this is false and pretty ignorant.

    3. Fair enough, if you can look past the exaggerations and still feel that it's fine to be careful of what you say, you're a more patient person than I.

    I'm after the justification as to

    1. Why people are careful in the first place
    2. more importantly, why some people feel the appropriate response to these mundane phrases is to make hell out of deep offence.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    Ok, first of all, the Milgram Study was an obedience study. He tested how prone human beings were to obeying authority - and found that they were, generally speaking willing to shock another human (against their own will power) with gentle persuasion from an authoratitive figure (e.g. a scientist). I believe that human nature is shaped (though not completely) by its surroundings and this level of obedience is due to living in a hierarchical society (I don't know whether Milgram would agree). What's more is that what Milgram was studying was reasons for what caused the Holocaust. He expected to find Germans to be more obedient than the average US citizen but what he actually found was little difference and far higher levels of obedience than he had expected to find. Nonetheless, he did not think obedience alone was sufficient enough to explain the Holocaust, an historic example which he felt had highly complex circumstances surrounding its nature.

    Secondly, I do not advocate the complete degeneration of political correctness but I certainly feel it has gone far enough (possibly too far even) and I was merely trying to demonstrate how counter arguments to "let's restrict intolerance in society" can go much further and deeper than racism, homophobia and general prejudice. However, if the truth is known, I do not particularly lie more towards one side or another. I would say moderation is key. It is probably absurd to lean to far towards any one particular stance. In any case, I often find people who are too PC a bit overwhelming and not very likeable, always assuming the moral highground. Perhaps if we took the mick out of "whiteys" more often, that would balance things out a little
    Hey, calm down, I already said that I partly agreed with you, and my point WAS moderation, hence the "to a certain extent"...

    Yeah, it was obedience, but obedience is close to conformity, which is why you get 12 year olds sniggering when they call a teacher gay. They think it's cool, they want to be like everyone else and use gay as an insult.
    I wasn't suggesting everyone become hyper sensitive to PC, but I don't feel that "taking the mick out of whiteys" would do anygood. You need to minimise the impact of current racist/other terms, not replace them with new ones. To be honest, I don't see why everyone does have to be categorised, although I appreciate it's just human instinct; we like things to have their place.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    :yep: haha.

    One black man in a crowd, the rest white.
    "Yes you, the man in the glasses, with the, the red jumper, and, and the fuzzy hair"
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BlueJoker)
    Hey, calm down, I already said that I partly agreed with you, and my point WAS moderation, hence the "to a certain extent"...
    :confused: Yeah, and I said I agreed back. I didn't think I was being confrontational, just trying to participate in discussion.

    Yeah, it was obedience, but obedience is close to conformity, which is why you get 12 year olds sniggering when they call a teacher gay. They think it's cool, they want to be like everyone else and use gay as an insult.
    I wasn't suggesting everyone become hyper sensitive to PC, but I don't feel that "taking the mick out of whiteys" would do anygood. You need to minimise the impact of current racist/other terms, not replace them with new ones. To be honest, I don't see why everyone does have to be categorised, although I appreciate it's just human instinct; we like things to have their place.
    All of the above is true. Also, I was half joking about turning jokes back on whites (though if you think about it, it would make sense, in moderation). In any case, how funny do you think comedy would be if we decided to go completely anal on PC awareness? Not very - in fact I'm not sure comedy would even exist any more
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    For me it is not getting too far, because I will continue to describe people as white if they are white, or black if they are black.
    If I see a fact that offends someone (which basically means they don't like the truth), I will bring it up if necessary in convosation.
    I will continue to call poorer countries like Africa etc the 'third world', and I will continue to call men that have been made out of snow snowmen.

    The people who political correctness is becoming a problem are the hypocrits who think that we live in a democracy, but think that the right to speak only extends to people who have the same views as themselves, hardcore lesbian feminists who think that men should give birth once in a while, and people who think that gender is a 'social construct' because they don't know what a penis is, and council workers who put up signs for religions that don't celebrate Christmas.

    Basically what I am saying is this, some other people act in a way that is described in the OP, but I will say what I please, and not act differently at all.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I find 'half caste' offensive. Someone once called me an half caste(or was it breed?) on TSR and I negative repped/reported him :smug:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Also, it (along with almost every other leftist policy), is really only attacking the symptoms.

    Good government would be to tackle the heart of the problems, by ensuring people really did believe that all British citizens, regardless of race, were as worthwhile as another. This would require policies that encouraged this to be true - for example policies which sorted out the black ghetto culture and the shockingly high percentage of crime that black people account for.
    Restricting what people can say is contrary to good governance and, at the very least, results in quiet resentment from people that their very lives are being controlled from Whitehall. After all, who is David Cameron to tell me what I may or may not say, and how to phrase it? I've never even met the chap. I assure you the only reason I don't say 'negro' is for fear of violence, and also not to be judged as a racist loon (which is invariably an unbountiful position to hold).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by whythehellnot)
    stay at home mums who can't say the word 'black' for the life of them need to grow the Duck up.
    With this sentence I can't tell if you're being:
    - amusingly hypocritical
    - dryly ironic
    - a troll
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.