Political Correctness

[Danoff]

Which is why I'm for balance, for the reasons you've highlighted. To me it seems the pendulum has swung so much that we are getting very quick to call people intolerant over opinions on complex issues.

"We"

Some people are. Some people aren't. And some people are trying desperately to be allowed to spout intolerant nonsense without getting called out on it. If you're going to take the absolute fastest to cry foul, you're probably looking at something like the transgender community, who are often deeply sensitive to these kinds of issues and very fast to attack. Often with results that I think undermine their goals (like Dawkins, and possibly this example that you brought up about the dating site). If you think "we" are the most aggressive people to label "bigot", you've missed something, because "we" also includes people that are militantly (and I don't use that word lightly) against anyone different, including the lightning rod transgender but also immigrants, minorities of all kinds, and various forms of sexuality.

So which is "we"? Is it the angry social justice activist? Or is it the angry fascist? Don't confuse this with me equating the two either. Calling someone a "transphobe" is basically name calling. If only the right-wingers would limit themselves to that we'd be in much better shape.

 

[Scaff]

I don't really understand how, in dating apps at least, it's a "default" ethnicity?

Odd because you then go on to say....

Are they more likely to get matches - possibly,

but I don't see why that should preclude the ability to search for members of that ethnicity.

Nor has anyone else. That's a strawman (and not the first you have used).

That report was nonsense (I believe I showed evidence of that in the thread) but if the country was institutionally racist wouldn't every sector put ethnic minorities at a disadvantage, with the cause explicitly being because of their skin colour?

I agree the report is nonsense, then again I'm not the one arguing that institutional racism doesn't exist in the UK. That would be you, which is odd because it 'not existing' is the conclusion of the report you described as nonsense?

Oh and no it doesn't have the be every sector for it to be institutional, you're arguing to the outliers again. Evidence exists that institutionally the UK is racist, classist, and misogynistic. None of these things are mutually exclusive, the existence of any one of them doesn't cause the other to cease to exist, and that none of them will exist in 100% of every aspect of life in the UK doesn't stop them from being real.

Women being given the vote didn't stop sexism and misogyny, just as the 1968 Race Relations act didn't stop the Metropolitan Police from being found to be Insitutianly racist in 1999, over twenty years later many of the recommendations from the report are still not in place and those that are, are often only paid lip-service.

 

[HenrySwanson]

"We"

Some people are. Some people aren't. And some people are trying desperately to be allowed to spout intolerant nonsense without getting called out on it. If you're going to take the absolute fastest to cry foul, you're probably looking at something like the transgender community, who are often deeply sensitive to these kinds of issues and very fast to attack. Often with results that I think undermine their goals (like Dawkins, and possibly this example that you brought up about the dating site). If you think "we" are the most aggressive people, you've missed something, because "we" also includes people that are militantly (and I don't use that word lightly) against anyone different, including the lightning rod transgender but also immigrants, minorities of all kinds, and various forms of sexuality.

So which is "we"? Is it the angry social justice activist? Or is it the angry fascist? Don't confuse this with me equating the two either. Calling someone a "transphobe" is basically name calling. If only the right-wingers would limit themselves to that we'd be in much better shape.

Interesting.

It's referring to the state of public discourse, made up by a community that I suppose would be undefinable but would contain all the groups you mentioned (and more).

Odd because you then go on to say....

So white is the default because they are likely to get more matches?

Nor has anyone else. That's a strawman (and not the first you have used).

People are arguing that it's racist, and therefore not socially acceptable to do that, but only for one group of people.

I agree the report is nonsense, then again I'm not the one arguing that institutional racism doesn't exist in the UK. That would be you, which is odd because it 'not existing' is the conclusion of the report you described as nonsense?

I can still call it a bad report even if I agree * with its stance on whether the UK is institutionally racist.

*Technically I'm undecided on if the country is institutionally racist.

Oh and no it doesn't have the be every sector for it to be institutional, you're arguing to the outliers again. Evidence exists that institutionally the UK is racist, classist, and misogynistic. None of these things are mutually exclusive, the existence of any one of them doesn't cause the other to cease to exist, and that none of them will exist in 100% of every aspect of life in the UK doesn't stop them from being real.

Women being given the vote didn't stop sexism and misogyny, just as the 1968 Race Relations act didn't stop the Metropolitan Police from being found to be Insitutianly racist in 1999, over twenty years later many of the recommendations from the report are still not in place and those that are, are often only paid lip-service.

I look at reports like this and wonder if they can all be definitively proven to be due to race. Some things are murky because some non-white ethnic groups outperform the white population, which you wouldn't expect if the cause was institutional racism.

I've got no doubt about the Met being institutionally racist at that time.

 

[Scaff]

So white is the default because they are likely to get more matches?

That's one outcome of it, not a cause, but your getting there.

People are arguing that it's racist, and therefore not socially acceptable to do that, but only for one group of people.

Define racist and then apply it to this context.

Redesign dating apps to lessen racial bias, study recommends | Cornell Chronicle

Mobile dating apps that allow users to filter their searches by race – or rely on algorithms that pair up people of the same race – reinforce racial divisions and biases, according to a new paper by Cornell researchers.

news.cornell.edu

I can still call it a bad report even if I agree * with its stance on whether the UK is institutionally racist.

*Technically I'm undecided on if the country is institutionally racist.

I look at reports like this and wonder if they can all be definitively proven to be due to race. Some things are murky because some non-white ethnic groups outperform the white population, which you wouldn't expect if the cause was institutional racism.

I've got no doubt about the Met being institutionally racist at that time.

Once again attempting to use outliers and it not being a blanket 100% problem to address it, if only I had already covered that...

 

[HenrySwanson]

That's one outcome of it, not a cause, but your getting there.


Define racist and then apply it to this context.

Redesign dating apps to lessen racial bias, study recommends | Cornell Chronicle

Mobile dating apps that allow users to filter their searches by race – or rely on algorithms that pair up people of the same race – reinforce racial divisions and biases, according to a new paper by Cornell researchers.

news.cornell.edu

Yes! Be critical of and redesign all dating apps if you want including those catering for black people, south Asians etc - not just the ones for white preference. That makes sense!

Once again attempting to use outliers and it not being a blanket 100% problem to address it, if only I had already covered that...

Take the first one from the link as an example (unemployment).

How do we know the differences in unemployment are due to race and not class? Does class or inter generational wealth have more or less of an effect than race? Would that more adequately explain why there is a big variation between the different non-white ethnic groups that make up the BME total??

 

[Danoff]

Yes! Be critical of and redesign all dating apps if you want including those catering for black people, south Asians etc - not just the ones for white preference. That makes sense!

That's not how this works... even a little bit.

People are going to do what they're going to do. It's legal to be racist. There will be dating apps that cater to just about everything. They might get called names, they might call other people names, we might find some of them to be self-selecting for the worst kind of people... but there's not ever going to be a leveling where everyone redesigns their app at once so nobody is on unequal footing.

 

[HenrySwanson]

That's not how this works... even a little bit.

People are going to do what they're going to do. It's legal to be racist. There will be dating apps that cater to just about everything. They might get called names, they might call other people names, we might find some of them to be self-selecting for the worst kind of people... but there's not ever going to be a leveling where everyone redesigns their app at once so nobody is on unequal footing.

You misunderstand, perhaps I didn't make it clear.

My position is that those other apps should be criticised for having an ethnic filter, and should also be the target of the study's recommendations. They shouldn't get a pass because they are for the "non-default", whatever that is.

 

[Danoff]

You misunderstand, perhaps I didn't make it clear.

My position is that those other apps should be criticised for having an ethnic filter, and should also be the target of the study's recommendations. They shouldn't get a pass because they are for the "non-default", whatever that is.

You seem to want to give a pass to whitepeoplemeet.com as long as blackpeoplemeet.com exists. I think you should knock it off. I don't think any of them should be criticized for having an ethnic filter. But a racially excluding website name is very distasteful.

What I get from Henry Swanson is a lot of crying hypocrisy and a lot less just calling balls and strikes. When someone complains about whitepeoplemeet, you don't have to bring up blackpeoplemeet at all. You can just say that whitepeoplemeet is a crap name for a website, and that the people who did that are 'hats. It's ok not to couch every example of racism in favor of white people with an example of other racism. You can just say it's bad without any qualifiers.

 

[HenrySwanson]

You seem to want to give a pass to whitepeoplemeet.com as long as blackpeoplemeet.com exists. I think you should knock it off. I don't think any of them should be criticized for having an ethnic filter. But a racially excluding website name is very distasteful.

What I get from Henry Swanson is a lot of crying hypocrisy and a lot less just calling balls and strikes. When someone complains about whitepeoplemeet, you don't have to bring up blackpeoplemeet at all. You can just say that whitepeoplemeet is a crap name for a website, and that the people who did that are 'hats. It's ok not to couch every example of racism in favor of white people with an example of other racism. You can just say it's bad without any qualifiers.

What I wanted to see was more of the Cornell paper's attitude, and less of the singling out of whitepeoplemeet since it didn't seem justified to be critical of one app and not the others. The name was just garbage - the posts about blackpeoplemeet were to show the lack of outrage in general and the double standards there appeared to be.

 

[Danoff]

What I wanted to see was more of the Cornell paper's attitude, and less of the singling out of whitepeoplemeet since it didn't seem justified to be critical of one app and not the others. The name was just garbage - the posts about blackpeoplemeet were to show the lack of outrage in general and the double standards there appeared to be.

These are separable issues. Like I said, you should not feel obliged to point out double standards or other racism when faced with a racist website name like whitepoplemeet. You can just say whitepeoplemeet is a terrible name. The double standard regarding blackpeoplemeet is very much separable. There are reasons for that double standard, not necessarily good ones, but reasons, and they're worth their own discussion.

If someone says murder is bad, do you jump on them and say that rape is also bad? Why aren't they complaining about rape? If they think rape is ok, do you really feel like you need to go over murder in that discussion?

Accept the common ground and focus on where you take issue. whitepeoplemeet is a crap website name, and it's good that people don't like it. Don't complain at them for holding a perfectly good position.

 

[TexRex]

 

[HenrySwanson]

These are separable issues. Like I said, you should not feel obliged to point out double standards or other racism when faced with a racist website name like whitepoplemeet.

The articles focussed more on the premise of the site itself, and the acceptability of other races preferring to date within their race rather than the name.

Here are two.

If someone says murder is bad, do you jump on them and say that rape is also bad? Why aren't they complaining about rape? If they think rape is ok, do you really feel like you need to go over murder in that discussion?

It's more the total silence on the issue (disregarding the Cornell article). Using that analogy it's more equatable to missing white woman syndrome - why do they get more attention than similar cases involving ethnic minority women?

 

[Scaff]

Yes! Be critical of and redesign all dating apps if you want including those catering for black people, south Asians etc - not just the ones for white preference. That makes sense!

You're dragging those goalposts around a lot, you must be knackered by now.

Take the first one from the link as an example (unemployment).

How do we know the differences in unemployment are due to race and not class? Does class or inter generational wealth have more or less of an effect than race? Would that more adequately explain why there is a big variation between the different non-white ethnic groups that make up the BME total??

We know, in part, because being called Kevin will not get your CV rejected in the same way that being called Jamal will do.

What’s in a Name? Name Discrimination and Hiring in the UK

Name discrimination is one of the most common forms of bias in the UK, especially in hiring. Hard to recognise and often unconscious, how do we tackle it?

www.beapplied.com

It's not a new revelation either, and nor does you once again falling back to using a false dilemma change that (and for the record, this is about the third time you've done that now).

 

[AlexWilmot]

Fun Fact:
a Friend and I in Uni got similar results so we'd see what a difference in names on the paper would get,
Anthony scored higher than Sibusiso

 

[HenrySwanson]

We know, in part, because being called Kevin will not get your CV rejected in the same way that being called Jamal will do.

What’s in a Name? Name Discrimination and Hiring in the UK

Name discrimination is one of the most common forms of bias in the UK, especially in hiring. Hard to recognise and often unconscious, how do we tackle it?

www.beapplied.com

It's not a new revelation either, and nor does you once again falling back to using a false dilemma change that (and for the record, this is about the third time you've done that now).

If you remember my post in the Britain thread that I linked to:

Using that definition, can we look at studies looking at the employment sector that found that responses to CVs are seemingly influenced by the applicant's name and that white working class males have better incomes and intergenerational mobility despite lower educational attainment compared to ethnic minority working class males, and say that institutional racism may play a part?

I mean with the CV one I'd struggle to think of a cause other than racism leading to that outcome, but do we call it institutional....

I'm saying there is racism (I even showed a more recent version of the CV problem in that post), but is the system against us so much that we call it institutional? Do we say that BME people were forced into those careers where job security was more vulnerable to the pandemic because of how the country treats them due to their race? I just feel like we're given so much opportunity in this country that wouldn't be found in most of the rest of the world and have help available for when we're struggling that it's hard to see ingrained obstructions due to race. Maybe I'm an outlier, and my family and people I know are outliers but I still have faith that racism is a small barrier to succeeding in the UK.

 

[Danoff]

The articles focussed more on the premise of the site itself, and the acceptability of other races preferring to date within their race rather than the name.

I have no problem with ethnicity filters within these websites. I have a problem with the name.

Using that analogy it's more equatable to missing white woman syndrome - why do they get more attention than similar cases involving ethnic minority women?

Lots of easy explanations for that (and they don't even require racism). It's probably a combination of easy explanations. Your analogy here is kindof a reverse analogy. I was trying to say that one thing being bad does not require discussion of another thing being bad. Your analogy is more like... there's nothing wrong with this in particular, but it looks uneven. Not so much on my point.

 

[Scaff]

If you remember my post in the Britain thread that I linked to:


I'm saying there is racism (I even showed a more recent version of the CV problem in that post), but is the system against us so much that we call it institutional? Do we say that BME people were forced into those careers where job security was more vulnerable to the pandemic because of how the country treats them due to their race? I just feel like we're given so much opportunity in this country that wouldn't be found in most of the rest of the world and have help available for when we're struggling that it's hard to see ingrained obstructions due to race. Maybe I'm an outlier, and my family and people I know are outliers but I still have faith that racism is a small barrier to succeeding in the UK.

Given the sheer volume of sources, reports, and data you have been shown indicating that institutional racism exists in the UK, yes I would say you are an outlier. Oddly you seem quite happy to use that to hand-wave it away.

I come from a working-class background and grew up on a sink-estate in a small village (this 'This Country' if you have seen it - but with a lot fewer laughs), my family exists as outliers in regard to institutional class barriers in the UK, doesn't mean I'm blind to the existence of them.

It's more the total silence on the issue

Sorry, the what?

To get the Cornell article I just googled 'racism in dating apps', the result is nothing close to 'total silence on the issue'.

I have to say it continues to look like you don't see institutional racism because you avoid looking for or at any evidence of it!

 

[HenrySwanson]

Sorry, the what?

To get the Cornell article I just googled 'racism in dating apps', the result is nothing close to 'total silence on the issue'.

I have to say it continues to look like you don't see institutional racism because you avoid looking for or at any evidence of it!

I thought the Cornell report was taking aim at all apps including ethnic dating apps too, but looking again I'm not sure.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Interesting insight from Anthony Horowitz, although it would have been better if he elaborated on what exactly was out of bounds:

Anthony Horowitz: Children’s publishers are the most afraid of offence

Children’s book publishers are the most scared about so-called cancel culture, Anthony Horowitz has claimed, saying that he was shocked to be told what he coul

www.thetimes.co.uk

“I’m very, very scared by what you’re calling cancel culture,” he told the Hay Festival. “I think what is happening to writers is extremely dangerous, where certain words are hidden, where certain thoughts are not allowed anymore, where certain activities [are not allowed], obviously to do with gender or to with ethnicity or to do with trying to share the experiences of others.”

....


At Hay, Horowitz said he had “suffered” during the writing of his latest children’s book, Where Seagulls Dare: A Diamond Brothers Case, which is due to be published next month. The novel, aimed at eight to twelve-year-olds, is about “the world’s worst detectives”.

“I have just suffered from my last book notes from my publisher which absolutely shocked me about things which I could or couldn’t say, which is a children’s book, not an adult book,” he said. He said he had needed to extensively rewrite the book, although he declined to say what the specific requests from the publishers were. He said they were “the usual -isms”.
“Children’s book publishers are more scared than anybody,” Horowitz added. “And it seems to me that the forces that are now active in the world — everything to do with the divisiveness of what we’ve been through, plus the sort of stark contrast thrown up by social media whereby something is either very good or very bad but there’s nothing in between — this is leading to a culture of fear and that is the bigger problem.

There's also a report that's concerning:

Prison guards are deferring to Islamists, report finds

Prison staff are so concerned about being accused of racism that Muslim terrorists have been able to seize control of wings and set up sharia courts behind bars, a report by the terrorism watchdog has found.

www.thetimes.co.uk

Prison staff are so concerned about being accused of racism that Muslim terrorists have been able to seize control of wings and set up sharia courts behind bars, a report by the terrorism watchdog has found.

A review of how terrorism is dealt with inside prisons said that Islamic extremists had sought to dictate the diets and washing habits of non-Muslim prisoners.

They had gone unchallenged when insisting that prison staff were barred from attending Friday prayers because they were not Muslim, or imposing conditions on entry, such as removing their shoes.

Inmates had appointed their own “emirs” on wings who undermined the authority of prison imams, the inquiry found. Jonathan Hall QC, the government’s independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, said he had been told that prison officers sometimes appealed to the wing “emir” to help maintain order among inmates.

Extremists used sharia courts to deliver punishments such as flogging and made “insincere allegations of racism and Islamophobia” when challenged by staff. This had weakened the ability of staff to stop the expanding control of terrorists over prison activities because they “worry about making false assumptions based on a lack of cultural familiarity with Islam or Muslims”.

Which suggests a few bad apples are being allowed to undermine the good work done by Prison Imams. Staff shortages not helping either:

Terrorism offenders ‘enjoy high status’ in prison, QC’s official report says

Independent reviewer of terror laws says staffing cuts in England and Wales jails have exacerbated problem

www.theguardian.com

Balanced against this however, is how some Muslims can be treated by staff

 

[huskeR32]

Interesting insight from Anthony Horowitz, although it would have been better if he elaborated on what exactly was out of bounds:

Without any idea of what he was asked to change, there's vanishingly little "insight" to be had here.

There's also a report that's concerning:

Another article that barely substantiates its premise, and instead heaps a bunch of irrelevant scaremongering upon the reader. Prisons the world over are full of inmates trying to undermine staff and establish control over each other. This is nothing new, nor is it somehow unique to Muslim inmates. Does any of that paywalled article explain why staff fear being labeled racist? By whom? (If not their supervisors, then what makes any of this more than an imagined bogeyman?) Have any past events borne out such a fear?

Balanced against this however, is how some Muslims can be treated by staff

Oh. If anything, past events show that this is very much not "PC", and instead reflect actual mistreatment of Muslim prisoners?

I've tried a few times before, unsuccessfully, to get you to understand that a person or group of persons being afraid of the PC bogeyman doesn't prove the existence of "PC" itself. And it's curious that none of these "concerning" articles ever seem able to give substance to those fears. They almost never even bother trying.

 

[TexRex]

I've tried a few times before, unsuccessfully, to get you to understand that a person or group of persons being afraid of the PC bogeyman doesn't prove the existence thereof.

I imagine you mean the existence of "PC" rather than the existence of such a bogeyman. That anyone is afraid of it suggests the bogeyman does exist, the rationality notwithstanding.

 

[huskeR32]

I imagine you mean the existence of "PC" rather than the existence of such a bogeyman. That anyone is afraid of it suggests the bogeyman does exist, the rationality notwithstanding.

Quite right.

 

[TexRex]

So this is fake news, but it's also very topical. This kind of ******** demonstrates just how effective a bogeyman "political correctness" (BOO!!!) is. It also demonstrates how ****ing gullible pundits like Andrew Sullivan are, but then that brings us back to it being an effective bogeyman because they so desperately want to believe and be scared that they're taken in by this ********.

 

[UKMikey]

Found the fake news.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Without any idea of what he was asked to change, there's vanishingly little "insight" to be had here.

There's more in the article on what he personally feels about writers' freedom. I don't know how much I can get away with posting (paywall and all) so I restricted it to what I thought might be of interest (that children's publishers are, in his opinion, harsh censors)

Another article that barely substantiates its premise, and instead heaps a bunch of irrelevant scaremongering upon the reader. Prisons the world over are full of inmates trying to undermine staff and establish control over each other. This is nothing new, nor is it somehow unique to Muslim inmates.

Errr, I mean it's not really "irrelevant scaremongering" is it. Apart from the very obvious ramifications for life inside prisons (both for Muslims and non-Muslims), there are consequences in the outside world. Perhaps the worst are the cases of Sudesh Amman and Usman Khan

Does any of that paywalled article explain why staff fear being labeled racist? By whom?

Unlike the Jay report which explored the Rotherham scandal and found people fearful over what may happen to community cohesion (a similar thing was found with the IOPC ruling in Rochdale), this report into terrorism in prisons only says that staff sometimes feel it is hard to distinguish terrorist behaviour because they worry about making false assumptions due to a lack of familiarity with the religion. It also says there was a tendency to regard Islam as a "no-go area" as it might be discriminatory towards Muslim prisoners, instead leaving it up to Imams to deal with.

(If not their supervisors, then what makes any of this more than an imagined bogeyman?) Have any past events borne out such a fear?

It may only be the inmates themselves, funnily enough. They were said to make up allegations of Islamophobia and racism.

Oh. If anything, past events show that this is very much not "PC", and instead reflect actual mistreatment of Muslim prisoners?

Yes, it's the opposite end of the spectrum.

I've tried a few times before, unsuccessfully, to get you to understand that a person or group of persons being afraid of the PC bogeyman doesn't prove the existence of "PC" itself. And it's curious that none of these "concerning" articles ever seem able to give substance to those fears. They almost never even bother trying.

That's the basis for the million dollar question. So far we've seen police, social workers, council members, prison staff, teachers, teaching assistants, security guards, and now psychologists failing to perform their duties adequately because of this fear. Something in our culture must have created this mindset where the fear of being called racist, phobic or whatever has become the priority over doing the right thing. These people are educated professionals, and when you have the parents of victims scared of being called racist (around the 21:30 mark here) when deciding what to do you have to wonder what the root cause is. It's that fear which I'd label "PC" if I had to, and I agree with you that it may be irrational. Considering the Rotherham case, a few perpetrators were eventually found guilty and nothing really kicked off between the different communities - in fact many saw it as racist to assume that Muslims would not want the guilty men to be punished. Of course the far-right stirred up hate and some rhetoric did spill over into conservative opinion but it could be argued that the attempted concealment of the crimes contributed more to that than the actual religion of the men. If we look at the psychologist afraid of coming out publicly to question the rise of transgender referrals she need only look at the case of Erica Anderson to see that it is possible to talk about it and not be damaged professionally (Anderson did however step down from a board position after she felt she was being "silenced" for discussing her views with the media"). Of course, some may counter and say they fear becoming a Ray Honeyford, and so are justified in not speaking their mind. Whatever the case, there needs to be a shift in thinking so that people realise they are more free to act than what they apparently think.

 

[huskeR32]

Errr, I mean it's not really "irrelevant scaremongering" is it.

Yes, it is. The problem is prison staff not properly controlling the prisoner population. It doesn't really matter what behavior is going uncontrolled. The stories of "sharia law" and ruthless power-hungry "emirs" was only included to scare the reader into imagining some new terrible threat that requires urgent attention. Strip away the words that were chosen to conjure scary brown people, though, and it's just typical prison behavior.

Unlike the Jay report which explored the Rotherham scandal and found people fearful over what may happen to community cohesion (a similar thing was found with the IOPC ruling in Rochdale), this report into terrorism in prisons only says that staff sometimes feel it is hard to distinguish terrorist behaviour because they worry about making false assumptions due to a lack of familiarity with the religion. It also says there was a tendency to regard Islam as a "no-go area" as it might be discriminatory towards Muslim prisoners, instead leaving it up to Imams to deal with.

Sounds to me like the people being criticized for not doing their job are throwing up the spectre of "PC" without any actual evidence that it's a real issue. If the guards feel unfamiliar with the religion, they should learn about it, not make excuses for not doing their job.

It may only be the inmates themselves, funnily enough. They were said to make up allegations of Islamophobia and racism.

They're letting the prisoners themselves scare them off of doing their job? Sounds like they're not very well suited for the job, then.

Yes, it's the opposite end of the spectrum.

Existing as opposed to not existing?

 

[TexRex]

I understand grievance to be a detriment on cognitive faculties, but god damn it is nice to see this argued from reason rather than emotion. Very well done, @huskeR32.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Yes, it is. The problem is prison staff not properly controlling the prisoner population.

Yes, we agree.

It doesn't really matter what behavior is going uncontrolled. The stories of "sharia law" and ruthless power-hungry "emirs" was only included to scare the reader into imagining some new terrible threat that requires urgent attention. Strip away the words that were chosen to conjure scary brown people, though, and it's just typical prison behavior.

Respectfully disagree. It adds context and depth to the story using information from a report by an independent watchdog on terrorism, which was itself commissioned because of a terrorist attack by an Islamist who spent time in prison. Even the Independent and BBC included the information about the "Emirs" and I really don't think they could be accused of having a bias that could cause them to "scaremonger" against "scary brown people". It'd be no different to reporting that a White Nationalist group was forcing inmates to say the Fourteen Words, or something like that. The irony that we're discussing the inclusion of words like that in a thread about political correctness is pretty funny.

Sounds to me like the people being criticized for not doing their job are throwing up the spectre of "PC" without any actual evidence that it's a real issue. If the guards feel unfamiliar with the religion, they should learn about it, not make excuses for not doing their job.

I'm hesitant to call it an excuse, simply because it's so pervasive. Psychologically speaking it seems (to me) a great proportion of the population needs to go through some sort of CBT to realise that the fear of causing offence is being given an undue amount of importance in their minds. However, I don't think approaching it with an "it's all in your head" view is necessarily the right way to go about things, particularly when you see stuff like this.

They're letting the prisoners themselves scare them off of doing their job?

In this case there's no other evidence that they were stopped by other agencies.

Existing as opposed to not existing?

Of actions (and inaction) towards Muslim prisoners.

 

[TexRex]

"Fear of causing offense." These spineless pansies need to buck the **** up and shut the **** up. It's pathetic.

Cause offense! But also understand that causing offense has consequences, some of which are appropriate while others are not but they exist just the same. ****ing crybabies have been tricked into the belief you're being oppressed. Oppression exists in the world, but this is not it.

Conservatism is mental illness.

 

[HenrySwanson]

"Fear of causing offense." These spineless pansies need to buck the ** up and shut the ** up. It's pathetic.

I mean, I kinda feel sorry for them. I wouldn't say it's only conservatives that are...."afflicted" (for instance, I doubt many teachers and psychologists would call themselves conservatives), and different groups may have different reasons .

Cause offense! But also understand that causing offense has consequences, some of which are appropriate while others are not but they exist just the same.

That's what Horowitz argued in the Times piece I linked to (and what he may have told his publishers before rewriting).