Political Correctness

  • Thread starter lbsf1
  • 2,890 comments
  • 151,652 views
TexRex
"Cancel culture" is "political correctness" (BOO!!!). They're both ambiguous bogeymen invoked whenever one doesn't approve of consequences for one's own or another's speech or actions.
Click to expand...
To make a further comparison, the following sounds very similar to what it seems to me like right-wingers are attempting to do with terms like "critical race theory", "social justice warrior" and "antifa":
UKMikey
A linguist explains how the far-right hijacked political correctness:

Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
UKMikey
To make a further comparison, the following sounds very similar to what it seems to me like right-wingers are attempting to do with terms like "critical race theory", "social justice warrior" and "antifa":
Click to expand...
"Cancel culture" may or may not be the more effective bogeyman.

"Cancel" is a strong assertion likely to provoke a strong emotional response when describing action taken against an individual or entity. Also, the bogeyman isn't constrained by a legitimate definition (not that that really got in the way).

On the other hand, "political correctness" suggests State action--infringement upon free speech protections--and alleges a normative agenda by the State.
 
TexRex
"Cancel culture" may or may not be the more effective bogeyman.

"Cancel" is a strong assertion likely to provoke a strong emotional response when describing action taken against an individual or entity. Also, the bogeyman isn't constrained by a legitimate definition (not that that really got in the way).

On the other hand, "political correctness" suggests State action--infringement upon free speech protections--and alleges a normative agenda by the State.
Click to expand...
It's all good (for a given value of "good"). "Anti-free speech" suggests that the boogeyman (or "boogeyperson" because the left hates gender, right?) is somehow making the target audience less "free", even if (say) that speech is celebrating those who literally fought to make people less free such as the CSA army.

Still, people complaining about "black lies (sic) matter" aren't as prevalent on this forum as they were on this thread four years ago, so I guess the consensus of opinion is moving in a positive direction.
 
Last edited:
This article got me thinking - is it ever acceptable to call out a community that you believe needs calling out for whatever reason?

In another thread it became apparent that it was (fairly) common to hold prejudiced views against gypsies. If the headteacher in the article was addressing Irish travellers instead of Bangladeshis, would the outcome have been different?
 
Last edited:
I think sometimes it can go too far, but sometimes it makes sense. I suppose it's like a lot of other things in life, where moderation is ideal.
 
HenrySwanson
This article got me thinking - is it ever acceptable to call out a community that you believe needs calling out for whatever reason?

In another thread it became apparent that it was (fairly) common to hold prejudiced views against gypsies. If the headteacher in the article was addressing Irish travellers instead of Bangladeshis, would the outcome have been different?
Click to expand...
There are certain communities who, on the whole, seemingly do little or nothing to dispel the stereotypes that they get labelled with. Time and time again you hear stories or see evidence that just backs up those stereotypes. Even the more liberal amongst us don't find it easy to not hold prejudices against them when there's no positive news or interactions reported.

Prejudices i think are often born in childhood, learned passively through stories absorbed from family and friends whom you believe their words and views to be absolute truth. it's only as you get older and experience situations for yourself that your opinions are altered. Often those early learnt opinions are turned on their head or other light is shed on them which gives you a better perspective. Occasionally though you come across no evidence with which to form differing opinions.
 
Last edited:
"This is a poem taken from Chris' critically acclaimed 2018 Edinburgh Festival Show "Northern Monkey" The show pokes fun at liberal misconceptions of working class people, the class divide and the discrimination that working class face in Britain today."

🤬 Language Warning (both videos) 🤬





:lol:
 
VBR
EDIT: The O&CE forum is sadly, IMHO, increasingly becoming a woke cesspit of illogic, prejudice, & intolerance...so...I'm getting the heck out of Dodge. To the scores of other based & red pill'd guys on here whom I respect & admire, I sincerely wish you all the best of luck, because I think you're gonna bloody well need it! Laters...

:)
Click to expand...
dd0.png
 
If you're going to change your name before slinking back to post drivel, maybe try one you haven't used before or someone might notice... 🤣
 
Was it common for the bad guy to come back to Dodge City after Marshal Dillon drove them out?
 
Ehhhh....while the right's weaponisation of "culture wars" is annoying I'd say the left's insistence that these are all only right wing bogeymen is equally devious.

Do we say that what happened to Jess De Wahls was only in her imagination:

After immense thought, sleepless nights and with much trepidation, in 2019 she posted a 5,000-word blog. “I have no issue with somebody who feels more comfortable expressing themselves as if they are the other sex,” she wrote. “However, I cannot accept people’s unsubstantiated assertions that they are in fact the opposite sex to which they were born and deserve to be extended the same rights as if they were born as such.”

The response was immediate and merciless. She was driven from her Soho Theatre salon. A gay friend whose hair she’d cut for ten years tweeted: “Never trust a ***** who does vagina art.” A colleague trawled her Facebook page, ordering lifelong friends to disavow her. All her offers to meet and talk were blanked.

Meanwhile the Instagram “embroidery community” set about destroying her livelihood. Petitions were launched, an exhibition in Australia was cancelled and every collaboration with a charity or company sabotaged. When she donated a work for raffle to raise money for period products in India, a male embroiderer hoped he’d win so he could burn it. One prominent stitcher of cheery flowers and “be kind” homilies has ranted non-stop about the injustice of it being De Wahls’s work that the snobbish RA chose when it finally allowed embroidery into “its hallowed halls”. Rather than her own, maybe?
Click to expand...

Is it then any surprise when a track athlete and mother to one is (allegedly) told to keep quiet about concerns over transgender athletes

And then, is the Batley Grammar school teacher only scared of a right wing invention after what he showed in his classroom?

The usual response is that it is a consequence of their actions, but when those actions are at worst questionable contributions to a particular debate doesn't that lead to the avoidance of contributing out of fear of offense - the very definition of political correctness??
 
Last edited:
HenrySwanson
Ehhhh....while the right's weaponisation of "culture wars" is annoying I'd say the left's insistence that these are all only right wing bogeymen is equally devious.
Click to expand...
Devious... right. So there's evil intent to obscure the "truth" that denies trans people their identity and people facing the consequences of propagating this divisive opinion need protecting from the nasty left mob.

It sounds like the Times is weaponising embroidery lady's experience as evidence of a culture war. How far are we obliged to go to protect her opinions?

Muslim extremism is clearly all the left's fault as well.

HenrySwanson
The usual response is that it is a consequence of their actions, but when those actions are at worst questionable contributions to a particular debate doesn't that lead to the avoidance of contributing out of fear of offense - the very definition of political correctness??
Click to expand...

I'm sorry those people don't feel safe stirring up crap but it's not our job to protect their free speech any more than they seem concerned about offending other people. There are plenty of people stepping up to champion their rights to sow discord. If those defenders want to complain that their views aren't universally accepted that's their prerogative.
 
Last edited:
HenrySwanson
Ehhhh....while the right's weaponisation of "culture wars" is annoying I'd say the left's insistence that these are all only right wing bogeymen is equally devious.

Do we say that what happened to Jess De Wahls was only in her imagination:



Is it then any surprise when a track athlete and mother to one is (allegedly) told to keep quiet about concerns over transgender athletes

And then, is the Batley Grammar school teacher only scared of a right wing invention after what he showed in his classroom?

The usual response is that it is a consequence of their actions, but when those actions are at worst questionable contributions to a particular debate doesn't that lead to the avoidance of contributing out of fear of offense - the very definition of political correctness??
Click to expand...
What is a right wing invention and why is an RE teacher scared of it??

Edit: also, who asked embroidery lady to write a 5000 word essay on something she knows (probably very similarly to the RE teacher) that it would illicit a reaction from people? You don't get to throw out controversial opinions then cry when you actually get a reaction.
 
Last edited:
merseyxshore
What is a right wing invention and why is an RE teacher scared of it??
Click to expand...
He seems to be saying that people are afraid to speak out because of fear of consequences (eg for what appears to be a stunt that's almost guaranteed to rile up credulous religious types). Does that mean that there shouldn't be consequences? Then I'm not sure why we have the rule of law to which this teacher should be referring if he's being physically threatened by a community which is about as un-"PC" as you can get.
 
Last edited:
merseyxshore
What is a right wing invention and why is an RE teacher scared of it??

Edit: also, who asked embroidery lady to write a 5000 word essay on something she knows (probably very similarly to the RE teacher) that it would illicit a reaction from people? You don't get to throw out controversial opinions then cry when you actually get a reaction.
Click to expand...
No-one asked her to, but the reaction means there is only one viewpoint allowed. You can't then say political correctness or cancel culture doesn't exist since, as we have witnessed, the reaction means most people would be afraid to put their head above the parapet. What I'm arguing is that the "tolerant" people are just as intolerant (or more so) than the ones putting out the "intolerant" opinion.

EDIT: I'm also not saying they shouldn't be allowed to protest - just that they are (usually) in the wrong for doing so as it doesn't contribute to a healthy debate, and in fact closes it down (i.e. the definition of political correctness). What happened to just disagreeing and countering the point?
 
Last edited:
HenrySwanson
No-one asked her to, but the reaction means there is only one viewpoint allowed. You can't then say political correctness or cancel culture doesn't exist since, as we have witnessed, the reaction means most people would be afraid to put their head above the parapet. What I'm arguing is that the "tolerant" people are just as intolerant (or more so) than the ones putting out the "intolerant" opinion.

EDIT: I'm also not saying they shouldn't be allowed to protest - just that they are (usually) in the wrong for doing so as it doesn't contribute to a healthy debate, and in fact closes it down (i.e. the definition of political correctness).
Click to expand...
It's not a case of one viewpoint being allowed, that's ridiculous. It's a case of many people being opposed to a negative viewpoint. Those with grievances against 'cancel culture' seem to think that those on the left wing have some consolidated organisation that blanket 'cancels' things. In reality its just many separate individuals and organisations reacting to something that has been said or done and they strongly disagree with and do not wish to be associated with. Which is absolutely their right.
 
I sure miss those days when minorities knew their place and weren't so uppity. They're the ones who should shut up, not the bigots who'd deny them personhood and rights. It's so PC.
 
merseyxshore
It's not a case of one viewpoint being allowed, that's ridiculous. It's a case of many people being opposed to a negative viewpoint. Those with grievances against 'cancel culture' seem to think that those on the left wing have some consolidated organisation that blanket 'cancels' things. In reality its just many separate individuals and organisations reacting to something that has been said or done and they strongly disagree with and do not wish to be associated with. Which is absolutely their right.
Click to expand...
But that's de facto what happens:

Agree with us orrrr...we destroy your livelihood and harass people that associate with you to disown you.

Why would anyone take the risk?

It then has the outcome of completely decimating the opposing view in the debates. It turns "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" into "I'll try my hardest to make sure no-one ever listens to you again or else".
 
Last edited:
HenrySwanson
It then has the outcome of completely decimating the opposing view in the debates. It turns "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" into "I'll try my hardest to make sure no-one ever listens to you again or else".
Click to expand...
These are separate issues. Defending someone's right to say something does not mean avoiding trying to get people to stop listening. You can do both. Like, for example, in the free speech area there is a discussion of whether people can advocate against vaccination. I defend the right of anti-vaxxers to voice their opinion, and I will try as hard as I can to get people to stop listening to them. Same goes for religion, I absolutely defend people's right to be religious and even preach their messages of hate (westboro for example), and yet I try as much as I can to get people not to listen to it.

What your'e describing, about people choosing not to support someone because of their speech, is just social interaction. It's society. And it's a very important part of free speech - the social implications of speech.
 
HenrySwanson
But that's de facto what happens:

Agree with us orrrr...we destroy your livelihood and harass people that associate with you to disown you.

Why would anyone take the risk?

It then has the outcome of completely decimating the opposing view in the debates. It turns "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" into "I'll try my hardest to make sure no-one ever listens to you again or else".
Click to expand...
It kinda comes back to that ancient proverb: if conservative voices are being silenced, why won't they ever shut the **** up?
 
I avoid certain shops because I disagree with their practices, and will happily explain to other people which shops and why.

I don't see this as particularly different from avoiding certain sellers for their practices, and telling your friends who have similar values which sellers and why.

Corollary to this is those who have opposing values choosing those sellers and shops by preference due to agreeing with their practices, and telling their friends who have similar values which sellers and shops, and why.

To use a well-worn example, if a shop refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding, a bunch of people would not shop there because they're homophobes, while another bunch would shop there because they're homophobes. The shop should be "allowed" to refuse custom for any reason, including because the owners are homophobes, and hopefully the second group of people is smaller than the first because homophobia is idiotic.

I don't know what the embroidery/transphobia thing is about, but I'm guessing a bunch of people highlighted the seller's views because they viewed them as negative - but at the same time a bunch of people will see them as positive and support the seller by placing orders.


I also don't see why any of this is "cancel culture". It's consumer awareness and the exercise of free expression.
 
Last edited:
Danoff
These are separate issues. Defending someone's right to say something does not mean avoiding trying to get people to stop listening. You can do both. Like, for example, in the free speech area there is a discussion of whether people can advocate against vaccination. I defend the right of anti-vaxxers to voice their opinion, and I will try as hard as I can to get people to stop listening to them. Same goes for religion, I absolutely defend people's right to be religious and even preach their messages of hate (westboro for example), and yet I try as much as I can to get people not to listen to it.

What your'e describing, about people choosing not to support someone because of their speech, is just social interaction. It's society. And it's a very important part of free speech - the social implications of speech
Click to expand...

Famine
I avoid certain shops because I disagree with their practices, and will happily explain to other people which shops and why.

I don't see this as particularly different from avoiding certain sellers for their practices, and telling your friends who have similar values which sellers and why.

Corollary to this is those who have opposing values choosing those sellers and shops by preference due to agreeing with their practices, and telling their friends who have similar values which sellers and shops, and why.

To use a well-worn example, if a shop refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding, a bunch of people would not shop there because they're homophobes, while another bunch would shop there because they're homophobes. The shop should be "allowed" to refuse custom for any reason, including because the owners are homophobes, and hopefully the second group of people is smaller than the first because homophobia is idiotic.

I don't know what the embroidery/transphobia thing is about, but I'm guessing a bunch of people highlighted the seller's views because they viewed them as negative - but at the same time a bunch of people will see them as positive and support the seller by placing orders.


I also don't see why any of this is "cancel culture". It's consumer awareness and the exercise of free expression.
Click to expand...
I guess I see it as opposing things that are debatable versus others which aren't.

For example I boycott the sponsors of the Qatar World Cup as much as possible, and tell others about it, but that's because of their human rights abuses.

Alongside this, people are actively trying to go after the income of people who oppose them on certain trans issues - issues that I think (and society thinks) are debatable.

I do see both of your points however - that what was once debatable becomes a topic that is seen as similar to how I view those human rights abuses, and so people who started going after their income will be seen as trailblazers. That being said, I'm still a bit apprehensive as to what that does for debate, in that we are forced into not discussing certain issues because we are too afraid of the consequences of causing offense. In essence we're handing too much power to extremists, or rather, people who go to further lengths than may be justified.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Liquid
Honesty Corner: Are You Prejudiced?
3 4 5
Replies
140
Views
8K
Imari
Imari
Sonygamer455
Who Still Plays Star Wars Battlefront II (2005)?
Replies
5
Views
776
Heldenzeit
Heldenzeit
NAXEHT
How clean are you? (% of clean races)
2 3
Replies
77
Views
7K
KAlex122
K
GranTurNismo
Do You Agree With This Statement (GAME)
2
Replies
44
Views
2K
HenrySwanson
HenrySwanson
Com Fox
The current state of the political climate.
2
Replies
49
Views
2K
UKMikey
UKMikey

Latest Posts

Back