How to abolish political correctness?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: deliberator

Isn't the BBC owned by the British government and is therefore NOT free press?

Not exactly.

Its complicated.

Though to be honest I dont watch much bbc.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: deliberator
a reply to: Krazysh0t

If you look at this Wikipage it would suggest free speech and also attempts by the UK government to censor. The BBC claims impartiality but news reporting often shows otherwise.

BBC controversies

Well that's what you get when you let the government control your main source of press, right? Luckily the UK allows other forms of media to penetrate their country so it's not like people in UK HAVE to go to the BBC for their news either. I guess it's up to the viewer to decide what to watch and what to believe in that sense.

Hardly call it main source. Think sky and ITV are more popular to be honest.

Normally buisness news bbc is used the most.

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: deliberator

Isn't the BBC owned by the British government and is therefore NOT free press?

Not exactly.

Its complicated.

Though to be honest I dont watch much bbc.

Yea, I wasn't sure how its setup. I know there is some government involvement though.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: deliberator

Isn't the BBC owned by the British government and is therefore NOT free press?

Not exactly.

Its complicated.

Though to be honest I dont watch much bbc.

Yea, I wasn't sure how its setup. I know there is some government involvement though.

Well its funded by tax payer money but most the programing is handled by a independent board of pedophi....sorry directors.

To be honest its a relic from the 1930's.
Set up when television networks and there infrastructure were massive costs.


In this day and age its served it purpose. With pay for view networks ect the BBC should be privatised completely or at least made optional.
Unfortunately its now a cash cow for certain people. Another government trough to fed from.

a reply to: crazyewok

Thanks for the clarification on that. The most I know about the BBC is how they edged out up and coming rock acts in the 60's that weren't based in London. Thankfully, the Beatles changed broke that mold, but ever since I heard that I wasn't too happy about them.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: crazyewok

Thanks for the clarification on that. The most I know about the BBC is how they edged out up and coming rock acts in the 60's that weren't based in London. Thankfully, the Beatles changed broke that mold, but ever since I heard that I wasn't too happy about them.

To fair even here few of us really know the inner workings of the BBC.

Its become such a complicated, corrupt buerocratic mess its no even funny.

But yeah its used to edge out competition in the 60's. New technology over the decades pretty much stopped that. Now its just lords and people with friends in high places but who are to inept to be trusted with a real goverment job useing it for a feeding trough.

Once the next generation of old biddies die off it should end up being privatised. Its only the older generation thats likes it how it is and people who like #e programing.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: deliberator
a reply to: Krazysh0t

If you look at this Wikipage it would suggest free speech and also attempts by the UK government to censor. The BBC claims impartiality but news reporting often shows otherwise.

BBC controversies

Well that's what you get when you let the government control your main source of press, right? Luckily the UK allows other forms of media to penetrate their country so it's not like people in UK HAVE to go to the BBC for their news either. I guess it's up to the viewer to decide what to watch and what to believe in that sense.

From 6am till 9am, the BBC runs the news on Radio 4. You'd have to hear it for yourself to appreciate what happens and the value it has. Politicians get ripped on there most days and every week. All parties, all politicians, PR agents and more get interrogated every day.

No other UK media outlets roasts these people like the BBC.

The UK Gov does not 'control' the content of the BBC. Both the Labour and Conservative parties have been trying to make the BBC a private business that would then be controllable and funded by commercials.

The BBC isn't perfect, but it's one of the most neutral media outlets on this planet.* No BS, when the BBC gets privatised, it'll be like the end of the free world to me.

* no, I didn't say it is neutral; I said 'most' neutral.

a reply to: crazyewok

Once the next generation of old biddies die off it should end up being privatised. Its only the older generation thats likes it how it is and people who like #e programing.

You are talking about my father

I mentioned to him that many people do not watch BBC so why should they pay the license fee. To say he got on a pedestal is an understatement. I got 30 minutes of rant relating to the BBC providing all the television masts and technology blah bah blah. He completely missed the point of my argument.

a reply to: Kandinsky

Interesting. As I was telling our furry ewok friend I am not as familiar with that news outlet and have just heard that the government is involved with running it and they were pretty anti-free expression back in the 60's in regards to up and coming music.

As for how credible I find them. For the most part I don't find them any worse than CNN or anything, but its not like they haven't been caught either lying, pushing propaganda, pushing clickbait, or reposting propaganda/lies from other news sources either. But then again, no media outlet hasn't had that happen to them. Journalists are human after all and making that deadline for the week may inspire all sorts of shady thoughts.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

You said the magic phrase "social consequences"
There shouldn't be any and that's the point of the 1st amendment.
Back when you criticized the King of England you could sent to prison for it.
Or maybe you thought the Archbishop of the Church of England was in error -
You could be excommunicated for it or even banished.

Those are exactly the kinds of consequences the 1st Amendment was supposed to prevent.

There are still libel and slander laws for saying untrue things with malicious intent.

Here's the problem.

Political Correctness at it's perfect ideal, just means using common manners and not insulting people and when you do apologize and move on or change what you're doing. We all want that but it get's bent out of shape.

Using racial slurs or derogatory names for women or homosexuals and not saying the word retard in jest in front of an actually mentally retarded person.

So in that sense there will always be political correctness, as there should be, and there will always be people that take it to far as there shouldn't be. But you can't stop using manners just because a few people abuse it.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Stopping political correctness has to come from the individual, and not a politician. To me, PC is nothing more than the pussification of the population. It's being used to intentionally obfuscate otherwise simple situations by wrapping them in nonsensical nomenclature that doesnt further the conversation at all. The best way to stop PC, in my very humble opinion, is to do as I do, and lead a personal war against it.

Grow a backbone.

Stand up for what you believe in.

Don't let someone belittle you because of something you said. Be yourself, and let the rest of the world around you decide what to think of you.

Actions speak louder than words, which is all PC is anyway (words).

So personally, I say let them have their PC thinking for a spat. Like childhood chickenpox, when they get over it, they'll move on. It's a phase. The danger to this phase though is that by indoctrinating children into believing that this is the "correct way to think", that the kids will grow up to be someone who doesn't think for themselves. There has to be individuality for there to be freedom, and that starts as the freedom of thought and speech. Criticizing me for what I say is just as much an exercise of the 1st amendment as my speaking it is. Doesn't change the fact that I'm not gonna change what I say. I will NOT change how I refer to things out of fear that it will offend someone. They're just gonna have to deal with it, or not listen to me, and ignore the wisdom that I have to offer.

If nothing else, PC forces people to close their minds to the possibility that they might be wrong...

TheBorg

a reply to: TheBorg

Stopping political correctness has to come from the individual, and not a politician. To me, PC is nothing more than the pussification of the population. It's being used to intentionally obfuscate otherwise simple situations by wrapping them in nonsensical nomenclature that doesnt further the conversation at all. The best way to stop PC, in my very humble opinion, is to do as I do, and lead a personal war against it.

Honestly, I'd rather be in a room full of "p_ssies" than a room full of "d_cks". Just saying...

oh yeah, i meant "p_ssies" as in "harmless/weak people" and "d_cks" as in "jerks/rude people". What'd you think i meant? lol

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I didn't mention any laws or suggest that there were any to make it mandatory, did I? I'm saying it's repeatedly reinforced suggestions that something is the "right" way to speak and that this suggestion trickles down from above.

a reply to: TheBorg

I really have no complaints with this response. If you are going to be non-PC, then own it. Complaining that others are complaining about you isn't going to get you anywhere.

originally posted by: Dem0nc1eaner
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I didn't mention any laws or suggest that there were any to make it mandatory, did I? I'm saying it's repeatedly reinforced suggestions that something is the "right" way to speak and that this suggestion trickles down from above.

So what? The first amendment is VERY clear on what it means by free speech. YOU are trying to change the definition to suit your needs.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: DAZ21
a reply to: Krazysh0t

That's fine as long as they can back up their PC accusation with proof that such freedom of speech was in fact racist.

Wait so someone spouting likely bigoted rhetoric doesn't have to back themselves up with evidence, but someone calling him a bigot needs to prove the person is a bigot? How does that work?

Which by the way is the problem with PC culture. Because they shout racist because it's something that they don't want to hear not necessarily because it was a racist statement that was made.

And?

The thing is, I agree with them here.

As someone who has worked in social justice, and works to this day with NGOs and political campaigns around disadvantaged communities, and who works around and is friends with countless social justice people, I've seen first hand how some people can and will abuse the concepts of social justice to manipulate others, or simply project on to others.

But everything is abused. There is no denying that.

There most definitely ARE situations where people call racism, when in fact the situation or original action is not racist. I disagree with you that someone can claim "racism" or bigotry without demonstrable evidence. The accusation of racism can destroy careers and reputations. Without real evidence, that is in fact slander or libel, or defamation of character. All of which can be prosecuted either in a court of law or civil court.

We call that an unfounded opinion. I see many of those thrown around from anti-pc people. Why can't pc people throw them around too? We are all humans after all. We all make similar mistakes in judgement.

A great example is recently a women in my office begin to see me as a threat as I was doing quite well. She began lashing out at me and harassing me. This was witnessed by others. I finally called her out on it. Given we work in a very liberal, social justicey group within NYC, she claimed that I was being "patriarchal" and that I was calling her out because she is a woman, so on and so forth.

What can you do? Sounds like the root of that problem was jealousy and not feminism though. She just used it to act out her jealousy.

Because her bad behavior was witnessed by others (thankfully), most of us knew that she was just behaving poorly, that in fact it wasn't due my "sexism" or "bigotry."

However, one of my uber social justice friends tried to lend it credence, because in our current "pc" or social justice climate, the moment someone offers some trigger word such as racism or sexism, all of a sudden that can be a valid superimposition or explanation, even if it is completely false.

It is these kinds of excesses that are making people disenchanted with the PC or social justice world, NOT the original or ostensible goals of social justice.

But the point is that it is all legal. Trying to make it otherwise is an infringement on the 1st. That is the point I'm trying to make with this thread.

But it's not all legal.

Again, if someone accuses someone of something which today can literally ruin careers or assassinate their character, and it is false, it is libel/slander/defamation of character. They can be sued and held accountable. In fact, they should be if the accusation harms the other person and is false.

The 1st amendment actually does not extend to libel and slander. You do not have the freedom to falsely defame someone's character, including with racism or sexism.

So it's not just "opinions." If someone is going to make a serious accusation, they better be able to back it up.

Also, when people abuse or manipulate very real topics such as racism or sexism, or any other "PC" topic, they actually degrade real discussions about such topics and take away from the situations where there IS actual racism and sexism. It's an abuse of concepts.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Well I'd say your personal opinion on the quality of the conversation after PC is introduced is rather irrelevant in regards to it being legal or not. You certainly are entitled to believe that about a PC conversation, but that opinion means nothing in regards to not being able to do something.

As for your point about libel/slander, that extends to all sorts of verbal attacks, not just PC attacks.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Well I'd say your personal opinion on the quality of the conversation after PC is introduced is rather irrelevant in regards to it being legal or not. You certainly are entitled to believe that about a PC conversation, but that opinion means nothing in regards to not being able to do something.

As for your point about libel/slander, that extends to all sorts of verbal attacks, not just PC attacks.

I'm solely referring to libel/slander in regards to PC topics. I am a very strong ally of various social justice movements, but this feedback is real, and something that many people refuse to discuss, i.e. some of the excesses of the social justice movement, or individuals within.

Saying that libel/slander, whether regarding PC topics, or completely different topics, is "opinion," isn't really a strong point. It can be opinion, but courts may not necessarily agree. People don't have the right to falsely defame others' character, which is why libel/slander laws exist.

But in our emergent culture, it is becoming socially acceptable to just throw around charges of racism or sexism, even in instances where it is unfounded. I don't think that this is a good development, even as I said if the negative is that it degrades the very social justice movement it is emerging from.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

But that is just the way things are. People will use freedoms in ways that you don't approve of. That is just something you have to deal with. It is what it is.