Scroll to see replies
no, political correctness is just a formal way of saying don't be a nob
No, it's an attempted means of creating an equal forum for all, i.e. one that is free from prejudicial language and/or actions.
(edited 4 years ago)
'Political Correctness' is the embodiment of a bunch of adults throwing their toys out of the pram because people have told them to stop saying stupid, short-sighted and offensive things.
It's not a way of 'showing favour' to any minority group, it's a way of ensuring that these groups aren't the recipients of constant derogatory jokes and confined to stereotypes.
Bearing in mind that women make up just over 50% of the population, they are one of the "minorities" who's rights are further protected in a 'politically correct' world.
It's not a way of 'showing favour' to any minority group, it's a way of ensuring that these groups aren't the recipients of constant derogatory jokes and confined to stereotypes.
Bearing in mind that women make up just over 50% of the population, they are one of the "minorities" who's rights are further protected in a 'politically correct' world.
But what about other groups/races whom have been subject to similar offensive things for decades if not hundreds of years and had to just accept it.We as humans categorize all who are different in some way.I personally endured many abuses due to my origin but nobody cared.Why does the media champion minorities?
Why should the few/minority be the focus in a society where majority rules.
Sorry but women cannot be regarded as a minority.
Why should the few/minority be the focus in a society where majority rules.
Sorry but women cannot be regarded as a minority.
Original post by clickypen
'Political Correctness' is the embodiment of a bunch of adults throwing their toys out of the pram because people have told them to stop saying stupid, short-sighted and offensive things.
It's not a way of 'showing favour' to any minority group, it's a way of ensuring that these groups aren't the recipients of constant derogatory jokes and confined to stereotypes.
Bearing in mind that women make up just over 50% of the population, they are one of the "minorities" who's rights are further protected in a 'politically correct' world.
It's not a way of 'showing favour' to any minority group, it's a way of ensuring that these groups aren't the recipients of constant derogatory jokes and confined to stereotypes.
Bearing in mind that women make up just over 50% of the population, they are one of the "minorities" who's rights are further protected in a 'politically correct' world.
Original post by machelo
Sorry but women cannot be regarded as a minority.
Sorry but women cannot be regarded as a minority.
This was my point? The idea of political correctness is that there's now the expectation that respect be paid to everyone, regardless of their gender, race, religion, sexual orientation etc.
You asked in your original post whether it was just a way of showing preferences to minorities and so I mentioned women, who are a majority, and who, in our 'politically correct' society, are entitled to be judged on their merits and not on their gender. The same goes for minority groups.
Sorry but in no way can women be described as a minority.The feeling and reality are just not the same.
The media portrayal of women, may in some minds promote feelings of inequality but that's not at all the real
world.It insights feminism or the need to somehow re-balance society in favour of women or minorities.It creates
a society of acute sensitivity at the cost of the democratic right to freedom of speech.I might not like what someone has to say
and it may cause offence but they should have the right to say it without fear of reprisal or worse.
We(society)make pariah's of people for expressing their views.
Respect is not paid to everyone and it never will be.Zero tolerance cannot and will not ever work.
We all tolerate to some degree whether we like it or not. That's the Human condition.
To fast track or show favour to minorities/women just because they are minorities/women is unjust and unfair and totally
disregards merit/ability.That is the reality of today's politically correct Society.
(Original post by clickypen)
The media portrayal of women, may in some minds promote feelings of inequality but that's not at all the real
world.It insights feminism or the need to somehow re-balance society in favour of women or minorities.It creates
a society of acute sensitivity at the cost of the democratic right to freedom of speech.I might not like what someone has to say
and it may cause offence but they should have the right to say it without fear of reprisal or worse.
We(society)make pariah's of people for expressing their views.
Respect is not paid to everyone and it never will be.Zero tolerance cannot and will not ever work.
We all tolerate to some degree whether we like it or not. That's the Human condition.
To fast track or show favour to minorities/women just because they are minorities/women is unjust and unfair and totally
disregards merit/ability.That is the reality of today's politically correct Society.
(Original post by clickypen)
This was my point? The idea of political correctness is that there's now the expectation that respect be paid to everyone, regardless of their gender, race, religion, sexual orientation etc.
You asked in your original post whether it was just a way of showing preferences to minorities and so I mentioned women, who are a majority, and who, in our 'politically correct' society, are entitled to be judged on their merits and not on their gender. The same goes for minority groups.
You asked in your original post whether it was just a way of showing preferences to minorities and so I mentioned women, who are a majority, and who, in our 'politically correct' society, are entitled to be judged on their merits and not on their gender. The same goes for minority groups.
Very insightful.
Original post by Zargabaath
no, political correctness is just a formal way of saying don't be a nob
Original post by machelo
Is political correctness just a way of showing favour to minority groups or race?
Not necessarily 'minority'. Political correctness is better described as a way of showing favour to those groups typically perceived as the underdogs, or victim classes in the exceedingly flawed Marixst worldview.
I would go further, and say that political correctness is a way of subjugating and domesticating the straight white male, where 'male' is of lesser importance, and 'straight' of even lesser importance again.
Original post by machelo
But what about other groups/races whom have been subject to similar offensive things for decades if not hundreds of years and had to just accept it.We as humans categorize all who are different in some way.I personally endured many abuses due to my origin but nobody cared.Why does the media champion minorities?
Why should the few/minority be the focus in a society where majority rules.
Sorry but women cannot be regarded as a minority.
Why should the few/minority be the focus in a society where majority rules.
Sorry but women cannot be regarded as a minority.
Tbh mate if minority groups were being judged on their merit, we'd have a very, very white country.
Original post by machelo
Sorry but in no way can women be described as a minority.The feeling and reality are just not the same.
The media portrayal of women, may in some minds promote feelings of inequality but that's not at all the real
world.It insights feminism or the need to somehow re-balance society in favour of women or minorities.It creates
a society of acute sensitivity at the cost of the democratic right to freedom of speech.I might not like what someone has to say
and it may cause offence but they should have the right to say it without fear of reprisal or worse.
We(society)make pariah's of people for expressing their views.
Respect is not paid to everyone and it never will be.Zero tolerance cannot and will not ever work.
We all tolerate to some degree whether we like it or not. That's the Human condition.
To fast track or show favour to minorities/women just because they are minorities/women is unjust and unfair and totally
disregards merit/ability.That is the reality of today's politically correct Society.
(Original post by clickypen)
The media portrayal of women, may in some minds promote feelings of inequality but that's not at all the real
world.It insights feminism or the need to somehow re-balance society in favour of women or minorities.It creates
a society of acute sensitivity at the cost of the democratic right to freedom of speech.I might not like what someone has to say
and it may cause offence but they should have the right to say it without fear of reprisal or worse.
We(society)make pariah's of people for expressing their views.
Respect is not paid to everyone and it never will be.Zero tolerance cannot and will not ever work.
We all tolerate to some degree whether we like it or not. That's the Human condition.
To fast track or show favour to minorities/women just because they are minorities/women is unjust and unfair and totally
disregards merit/ability.That is the reality of today's politically correct Society.
(Original post by clickypen)
Please re-read my original response. I literally said women were a majority.
Feminism doesn't seek to rebalance society in favour of women, it seeks to equalize it and shfit the balance away from favouring men.
You're still welcome to say what you want, but you don't have the right to infringe on another individual. Furthermore, it is your employers right to take action against you if they believe that what you said is derogatory or offensive.
Even if you concede that it will be impossible to reach a point where every individual respects everyone else, it doesn't mean we should give up entirely. By contuining to strive for equality, we make things gradually better.
Society doesn't fast track or favour minorities and women. It simply seeks to empower them with the same benefits that (largely white) men have enjoyed for centuries.
"Political correctness" is really just a way of saying "I prefer this terminology and not that terminology", generally with regard to portraying controversial things the speaker favours in as anodyne and favourable terms as possible, and those they oppose in as negative and dramatic terms as possible.
It's a practice as old as time. To give just one old example, back during the Reformation, Protestants would call themselves "reformers" or "evangelicals" while insisting on calling Catholics "papists". Catholics, in turn, would call themselves "true believers" or "loyalists", while damning Protestants as "heretics".
Alternatively, some also use it to mean something more like hegemonic or politically dominant discourse. Or rather, what the speaker would like to present as the politically dominant discourse so they can portray themselves as more rebellious or heterodox than they really are. Brexit is the most obvious current example of this.
It's a practice as old as time. To give just one old example, back during the Reformation, Protestants would call themselves "reformers" or "evangelicals" while insisting on calling Catholics "papists". Catholics, in turn, would call themselves "true believers" or "loyalists", while damning Protestants as "heretics".
Alternatively, some also use it to mean something more like hegemonic or politically dominant discourse. Or rather, what the speaker would like to present as the politically dominant discourse so they can portray themselves as more rebellious or heterodox than they really are. Brexit is the most obvious current example of this.
(edited 4 years ago)
Footage from 2030 school:
(edited 4 years ago)
Original post by clickypen
Please re-read my original response. I literally said women were a majority.
Feminism doesn't seek to rebalance society in favour of women, it seeks to equalize it and shfit the balance away from favouring men.
You're still welcome to say what you want, but you don't have the right to infringe on another individual. Furthermore, it is your employers right to take action against you if they believe that what you said is derogatory or offensive.
Even if you concede that it will be impossible to reach a point where every individual respects everyone else, it doesn't mean we should give up entirely. By contuining to strive for equality, we make things gradually better.
Society doesn't fast track or favour minorities and women. It simply seeks to empower them with the same benefits that (largely white) men have enjoyed for centuries.
Feminism doesn't seek to rebalance society in favour of women, it seeks to equalize it and shfit the balance away from favouring men.
You're still welcome to say what you want, but you don't have the right to infringe on another individual. Furthermore, it is your employers right to take action against you if they believe that what you said is derogatory or offensive.
Even if you concede that it will be impossible to reach a point where every individual respects everyone else, it doesn't mean we should give up entirely. By contuining to strive for equality, we make things gradually better.
Society doesn't fast track or favour minorities and women. It simply seeks to empower them with the same benefits that (largely white) men have enjoyed for centuries.
Frankly you seem confused as to whether women are a majority/minority.
When you say shift the balance away from men you clearly mean white men.
Thank you for recognizing my right to freedom of speech. I have no control over whom this may or may not offend(hypersensitivity).
Equality is just a word, like sustainability, ultimately un-achievable but politically correct to use.
And I'm afraid if you do your research you will find that many organisations(Metropolitan Police etc)fast track minorities.A two year course
in 3 months.
Benefits? What benefits.
Original post by machelo
Frankly you seem confused as to whether women are a majority/minority.
When you say shift the balance away from men you clearly mean white men.
Thank you for recognizing my right to freedom of speech. I have no control over whom this may or may not offend(hypersensitivity).
Equality is just a word, like sustainability, ultimately un-achievable but politically correct to use.
And I'm afraid if you do your research you will find that many organisations(Metropolitan Police etc)fast track minorities.A two year course
in 3 months.
Benefits? What benefits.
When you say shift the balance away from men you clearly mean white men.
Thank you for recognizing my right to freedom of speech. I have no control over whom this may or may not offend(hypersensitivity).
Equality is just a word, like sustainability, ultimately un-achievable but politically correct to use.
And I'm afraid if you do your research you will find that many organisations(Metropolitan Police etc)fast track minorities.A two year course
in 3 months.
Benefits? What benefits.
1. Your original question was whether or not political correctness was a way of showing favour to minority groups. I answered no because women were a majority of the population.
2. Yes, I literally said that in my answer.
3. um. you're welcome.
4. I've already answered your point about it being 'unachievable'
5. The Met polices one of the largest and most diverse cities on Earth, with countless ethnicities represented in its population. Despite this, it remains a largely white organisation. This isn't a criticism of the men and women who work for the force, it's just a statement of a fact. If we lived in a truly equal society, this simply would not be the case because a proportional number of people of colour would be represented in the police force. The Met is striving to achieve this by encouraging members of minorities to join the police by offering a shorter training period. This doesn't change the job that they'll be doing at the end, just the amount of time it takes to get there. The reason this isn't offered to white British people is because the numbers suggest that they don't need the extra incentive to consider a career in the Met. Is this a completely fair system? Not really, but the fact remains that there is an imbalance in the Met, (particularly at higher levels) where an unrepresentatively large proportion of senior officers are middle aged white men. The scheme you're talking about aims to correct this; shifting the balance away from favouring white men to both white men and everyone else.
6. One advantage that white men have historically had over people of colour is the legal right to own them as slaves. Women weren't afforded the vote until 1918, and even then it was only if they were property owners.
Original post by machelo
But what about other groups/races whom have been subject to similar offensive things for decades if not hundreds of years and had to just accept it.We as humans categorize all who are different in some way.I personally endured many abuses due to my origin but nobody cared.Why does the media champion minorities?
Why should the few/minority be the focus in a society where majority rules.
Sorry but women cannot be regarded as a minority.
Why should the few/minority be the focus in a society where majority rules.
Sorry but women cannot be regarded as a minority.
It has nothing to do with minorities. It is about not being discriminatory or derogatory towards a group of people.
White people are a minority in this world yet there are numerous politically incorrect ways of addressing non-whites. This is generally known as racism but dismissed by racists as political correctness gone mad.
It was nice to see that men have been included in the political correctness stakes and can no longer be viewed as unable to perform childcare or cleaning activities.
Original post by clickypen
1. Your original question was whether or not political correctness was a way of showing favour to minority groups. I answered no because women were a majority of the population.
2. Yes, I literally said that in my answer.
3. um. you're welcome.
4. I've already answered your point about it being 'unachievable'
5. The Met polices one of the largest and most diverse cities on Earth, with countless ethnicities represented in its population. Despite this, it remains a largely white organisation. This isn't a criticism of the men and women who work for the force, it's just a statement of a fact. If we lived in a truly equal society, this simply would not be the case because a proportional number of people of colour would be represented in the police force. The Met is striving to achieve this by encouraging members of minorities to join the police by offering a shorter training period. This doesn't change the job that they'll be doing at the end, just the amount of time it takes to get there. The reason this isn't offered to white British people is because the numbers suggest that they don't need the extra incentive to consider a career in the Met. Is this a completely fair system? Not really, but the fact remains that there is an imbalance in the Met, (particularly at higher levels) where an unrepresentatively large proportion of senior officers are middle aged white men. The scheme you're talking about aims to correct this; shifting the balance away from favouring white men to both white men and everyone else.
6. One advantage that white men have historically had over people of colour is the legal right to own them as slaves. Women weren't afforded the vote until 1918, and even then it was only if they were property
2. Yes, I literally said that in my answer.
3. um. you're welcome.
4. I've already answered your point about it being 'unachievable'
5. The Met polices one of the largest and most diverse cities on Earth, with countless ethnicities represented in its population. Despite this, it remains a largely white organisation. This isn't a criticism of the men and women who work for the force, it's just a statement of a fact. If we lived in a truly equal society, this simply would not be the case because a proportional number of people of colour would be represented in the police force. The Met is striving to achieve this by encouraging members of minorities to join the police by offering a shorter training period. This doesn't change the job that they'll be doing at the end, just the amount of time it takes to get there. The reason this isn't offered to white British people is because the numbers suggest that they don't need the extra incentive to consider a career in the Met. Is this a completely fair system? Not really, but the fact remains that there is an imbalance in the Met, (particularly at higher levels) where an unrepresentatively large proportion of senior officers are middle aged white men. The scheme you're talking about aims to correct this; shifting the balance away from favouring white men to both white men and everyone else.
6. One advantage that white men have historically had over people of colour is the legal right to own them as slaves. Women weren't afforded the vote until 1918, and even then it was only if they were property
If you want to discuss imbalance 75% of the NHS are females.
Nothing is being done to address that imbalance.
Not to mention primary school teachers, the vast majority female.
Again very little being done to address imbalance.
The MET do not favour white men(ridiculous statement)over everyone else.
And regarding slavery, whites were enslaving whites long before people of color(the Romans).
And Proportionality.At the last census people who Identified as black made up less than 5% of the entire UK population.
How does this equate to the BBC's current policy(if your ethnic minority black the job's yours).Its ridiculous the historical
inaccuracies to satisfy political correctness.
Women and ethnic minorities need to stop looking at the past with an axe to grind in the present.
Reached the zenith of your contribution?
Original post by Kill3rCat
Oh f**k it.
Spoiler
Original post by BlueIndigoViolet
Footage from 2030 school:
Yawn, the right really need to find some new cliches. Kurt Vonnegut was satirising all this back in the 1960s.
Quick Reply
Latest
Last reply 1 minute ago
2024/2025 maintenance loan with pre-settled statusLast reply 6 minutes ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 7 minutes ago
JK Rowling in ‘arrest me’ challenge over hate crime lawLast reply 9 minutes ago
Ordinarily Resident - living abroad for last 2 yearsLast reply 10 minutes ago
Inlaks, Commonwealth, and Other Scholarships for Indian Students 2024: ThreadLast reply 10 minutes ago
PA Consulting Degree Apprenticeships 2024Last reply 12 minutes ago
Imperial offer but reject by st andrews ???Last reply 13 minutes ago
What do I need - I've a UK passport but live in EUTrending
Last reply 16 minutes ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 16 minutes ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
