by Yumyumsuppertime » Sun Nov 03, 2013 2:23 pm
by Frisivisia » Sun Nov 03, 2013 2:26 pm
by Cannot think of a name » Sun Nov 03, 2013 2:32 pm
by Quintium » Sun Nov 03, 2013 2:37 pm
by The UK in Exile » Sun Nov 03, 2013 2:39 pm
Quintium wrote:My signature has a very sensible point on political correctness.
by Frisivisia » Sun Nov 03, 2013 2:40 pm
Quintium wrote:Personally, I think political correctness is very much a thing and it's a bloody shame for any society that wants to call itself free. When a fundamentalist killed a film maker here, politicians actually discussed reviving our blasphemy laws to please those fundamentalists. Whenever there's a terrorist attack, public television but also newspapers and private television channels try to pussyfoot around the reasons cited by the terrorists themselves and try to concoct some stupid story about poverty or oppression instead. Schools here teach us that our history is something to be ashamed of, and that it has created for us some sort of ethereal debt to the rest of the world.
My signature has a very sensible point on political correctness. The subjects for political correctness may have changed since the early 1940s, but the ways in which it is generally carried out have not. It's not so much overt government censorship - which is a shame, because then people couldn't deny it - but rather a sickening, deceptive form of self-censorship by those genuinely afraid of offending someone or something they're afraid to offend.
by Shaggai » Sun Nov 03, 2013 2:42 pm
Quintium wrote:Personally, I think political correctness is very much a thing and it's a bloody shame for any society that wants to call itself free. When a fundamentalist killed a film maker here, politicians actually discussed reviving our blasphemy laws to please those fundamentalists. Whenever there's a terrorist attack, public television but also newspapers and private television channels try to pussyfoot around the reasons cited by the terrorists themselves and try to concoct some stupid story about poverty or oppression instead. Schools here teach us that our history is something to be ashamed of, and that it has created for us some sort of ethereal debt to the rest of the world.
My signature has a very sensible point on political correctness. The subjects for political correctness may have changed since the early 1940s, but the ways in which it is generally carried out have not. It's not so much overt government censorship - which is a shame, because then people couldn't deny it - but rather a sickening, deceptive form of self-censorship by those genuinely afraid of offending someone or something they're afraid to offend.
by Quintium » Sun Nov 03, 2013 2:43 pm
Frisivisia wrote:Trying not to offend people is so Orwellian. I bet you didn't even cherry pick that quote.
by Quintium » Sun Nov 03, 2013 2:44 pm
Shaggai wrote:So... basically, you want people saying the things you agree with? Doesn't sound any better than what you claim political correctness to be.
by Frisivisia » Sun Nov 03, 2013 2:44 pm
Quintium wrote:Frisivisia wrote:Trying not to offend people is so Orwellian. I bet you didn't even cherry pick that quote.
It's from the introduction to Animal Farm, a book that wasn't published until after the war because it might offend Stalin. In that introduction, he discussed a situation really rather similar to the one we have today - some things are either not discussed or only discussed in favour of one position. In the precise context of that introduction, in British intellectual circles of the early 1940s, you could praise the Soviet Union but not criticise it, as Orwell often wanted to. If you did, your works were refused publication and you were looked at as if you were a leper.
by Yumyumsuppertime » Sun Nov 03, 2013 2:46 pm
Quintium wrote:Personally, I think political correctness is very much a thing and it's a bloody shame for any society that wants to call itself free. When a fundamentalist killed a film maker here, politicians actually discussed reviving our blasphemy laws to please those fundamentalists.
Whenever there's a terrorist attack, public television but also newspapers and private television channels try to pussyfoot around the reasons cited by the terrorists themselves and try to concoct some stupid story about poverty or oppression instead.
Schools here teach us that our history is something to be ashamed of, and that it has created for us some sort of ethereal debt to the rest of the world.
My signature has a very sensible point on political correctness.
The subjects for political correctness may have changed since the early 1940s, but the ways in which it is generally carried out have not. It's not so much overt government censorship - which is a shame, because then people couldn't deny it - but rather a sickening, deceptive form of self-censorship by those genuinely afraid of offending someone or something they're afraid to offend.
by Quintium » Sun Nov 03, 2013 2:47 pm
Frisivisia wrote:And that's the same as not using slurs and general dickishness. Good to know.
by The Serbian Empire » Sun Nov 03, 2013 2:47 pm
by Frisivisia » Sun Nov 03, 2013 2:48 pm
Quintium wrote:Frisivisia wrote:And that's the same as not using slurs and general dickishness. Good to know.
Political correctness concerns much more than not using 'slurs and general dickishness'. In fact, it's less about how you say it and more about what you say. Some positions are genuinely not accepted in the higher circles of public debate anywhere in the western world. They're not even discussed or debunked - they're not published or ignored and the people who write about them are declared insane or ostracised.
by Blasveck » Sun Nov 03, 2013 2:50 pm
Quintium wrote:Frisivisia wrote:Trying not to offend people is so Orwellian. I bet you didn't even cherry pick that quote.
It's from the introduction to Animal Farm, a book that wasn't published until after the war because it might offend Stalin. In that introduction, he discussed a situation really rather similar to the one we have today - some things are either not discussed or only discussed in favour of one position. In the precise context of that introduction, in British intellectual circles of the early 1940s, you could praise the Soviet Union but not criticise it, as Orwell often wanted to. If you did, your works were refused publication and you were looked at as if you were a leper.
by Quintium » Sun Nov 03, 2013 2:51 pm
Yumyumsuppertime wrote:Were the laws revived? Was there a serious push to do this, or was it a few people on the fringe pushing for it?
Yumyumsuppertime wrote:Religious fanaticism of the sort that leads to terrorism does not exist within a vacuum. Poverty and oppression can lead to violent reactions against one's perceived oppressors, and fundamentalist interpretations of religion can provide a moral justification for these reactions.
Yumyumsuppertime wrote:What, exactly, is being said? I hear people say this about our own textbooks in America, but I haven't seen the evidence. Instead, any comment that slavery (for instance) created social issues that have lasted to this day is treated as reinforcement of white guilt instead of a statement of simple fact.
Yumyumsuppertime wrote:Orwell was simply stating a historical truth that applies to all ages, not just this one. For instance, "racial science", which had a heyday in the 19th and early 20th centuries, isn't really seen as an acceptable subject nowadays, and there's nothing necessarily wrong with that.
by The UK in Exile » Sun Nov 03, 2013 2:53 pm
Quintium wrote:Shaggai wrote:So... basically, you want people saying the things you agree with? Doesn't sound any better than what you claim political correctness to be.
Where did you get that idea? I'm saying people are absolutely free to offend me - and I think they should be - but on some subjects, I am not allowed to offend them or I'll be the subject of social ostracism and one-way ridicule.
by Quintium » Sun Nov 03, 2013 2:53 pm
Frisivisia wrote:Examples plz.
by Yumyumsuppertime » Sun Nov 03, 2013 2:53 pm
Quintium wrote:Yumyumsuppertime wrote:Were the laws revived? Was there a serious push to do this, or was it a few people on the fringe pushing for it?
Ultimately, our blasphemy laws were not revived because the general public was outraged by their suggestion of appeasing terrorists after they had murdered a film maker for criticising their prophet. Still, the proposal could count on the support of the cabinet we had at the time, and it was even proposed by the Minister of Justice.Yumyumsuppertime wrote:Religious fanaticism of the sort that leads to terrorism does not exist within a vacuum. Poverty and oppression can lead to violent reactions against one's perceived oppressors, and fundamentalist interpretations of religion can provide a moral justification for these reactions.
I'm talking, specifically, about the Woolwich attack earlier this year. Public media, at least in the first hours after the attack, left out the bit where he justified his attacks with his religion. They only repeated, time and again, the part where he talked about the situation in "his country".Yumyumsuppertime wrote:What, exactly, is being said? I hear people say this about our own textbooks in America, but I haven't seen the evidence. Instead, any comment that slavery (for instance) created social issues that have lasted to this day is treated as reinforcement of white guilt instead of a statement of simple fact.
Well, I won't go into this, because then the discussion would be about that.
It's more than just slavery, that's all.Yumyumsuppertime wrote:Orwell was simply stating a historical truth that applies to all ages, not just this one. For instance, "racial science", which had a heyday in the 19th and early 20th centuries, isn't really seen as an acceptable subject nowadays, and there's nothing necessarily wrong with that.
Well, I wasn't saying it applied to just this age. In fact, this is an entirely different age than his.
It's still a major problem in public debate, though, that some positions are considered unacceptable.
by Solaray » Sun Nov 03, 2013 2:54 pm
by Blasveck » Sun Nov 03, 2013 2:55 pm
Quintium wrote:Frisivisia wrote:Examples plz.
Here's one. Displaying the original flag of the Netherlands, which was used during the Eighty Years' War. It's considered offensive now, in part because it's "an allusion to a time when we were not very friendly" and in part - though that's more of a justification than a genuine reason, I feel - because some nazi thugs used it in the past. Now, you're not really supposed to display it anywhere, and when you do you're met with disapproval.
by Yumyumsuppertime » Sun Nov 03, 2013 2:55 pm
Solaray wrote:Political correctness is alright until you start getting sued for saying "Merry Christmas". (Or similar instances)
by Forster Keys » Sun Nov 03, 2013 2:56 pm
by Quintium » Sun Nov 03, 2013 2:57 pm
Yumyumsuppertime wrote:So you're essentially saying that you don't like the concept of social mores when it comes to communication of ideas.
by Yumyumsuppertime » Sun Nov 03, 2013 2:57 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Hidrandia, Infected Mushroom, Jerzylvania, Maxador, Misdainana, Port Carverton, Sutalia, The 228th, The Jamesian Republic, Valrifall, Vanuzgard
Advertisement