It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Political Correctness!!!

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 05:20 AM
link   
What are everyones views on political correctness? ie: Firemen is now firefighter and tradesmen must be called tradespersons.
Ive even seen childrens cartoons that have been highly modified due to PC.
My opinion is that it is a load of tripe and we should be allowed to call things whatever we want.

I am definitly not a racist, but due to PC i dont even know what to call a coloured person anymore!




posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by MickeyDee
What are everyones views on political correctness?


One of the main things thats wrong with our country.


I am definitly not a racist, but due to PC i dont even know what to call a coloured person anymore!


I use, black, arab, turk, white etc



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by MickeyDee
What are everyones views on political correctness?


- It's a fuss over nothing much IMO.

I don't believe in a 'PC brigade' and I don't feel the slightest bit bothered about trying to use less prejudicial, more accurate, less offensive and more considerate language.

I doubt I get it 'right' all the time but at least 'we' are - in public life, if not our private lives - gradually improving things.


ie: Firemen is now firefighter and tradesmen must be called tradespersons.


- Well there are women doing the job so why should a 'Fire-woman' be referred to as a 'Fireman'? Why do you feel the need to be gender specific?

What's all this "must" about? Who is making you personally call anybody anything anyway?
Job specifications and the like are one thing but I doubt you'll be getting picked up by the 'PC police' anytime soon for calling a tradesman and not a tradesperson.


Ive even seen childrens cartoons that have been highly modified due to PC.


- Well I've seen the Robinsons 'Gollywog' become the 'Golly' and finally be removed entirely. It was no loss.
I didn't notice British society crumble.
I did notice black kids don't get called that anymore.

I'd call that an improvement - and if I were black I'd probably feel even stronger about it.


My opinion is that it is a load of tripe and we should be allowed to call things whatever we want.


- You still can.
The whole point of 'PC' is to treat people with respect and not offensive broad-brush generality or prejudice.

You are not personally actually barred from saying anything...... although if you offend someone and create a disturbance of HM's peace you may be asked to account for any consequences you spark off.

Just as you would if you used insulting language or behaviour with anybody anywhere that led to trouble.


I am definitly not a racist, but due to PC i dont even know what to call a coloured person anymore!


- A person? By their name?

(I don't see that actually stating that a person is 'black' has been barred from anywhere but anyway why would referring to a person's 'colour' be important in everyday life?)



posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 05:31 PM
link   
I think we may have gone a bit far on the PC in the UK, I mean the RN just recently asked for homosexual sailors to come back since it wasnt illegal and made a bit of fuss about it.
Also, I read through many brochures and they seem to be no offence but highly PC'ed.



posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 06:02 PM
link   
pc sux!!!

txt rulez!!!



posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
I think we may have gone a bit far on the PC in the UK, I mean the RN just recently asked for homosexual sailors to come back since it wasnt illegal and made a bit of fuss about it.


- DW the truth is there have always been homosexuals in the military. Some, famously, made outstanding and excellent soldiers.

Did you see the Channel 4 series about gay soldiers, sailors and airmen of WW2 on TV recently?
There was a situation where men depended upon each other for their lives for years on end, in the most confined conditions and the usual 'standard objections' about the proported corrosive and damaging 'effects' supposedly brought about 'permitting' gay people to serve in the armed forces is proven rubbish.

The idea that allowing 'them' in would result in (sexual) abuse is nonsense, for every rare case there are umteen of far worse abuse (including sexual) by supposedly hetrosexuals.
(Ever heard of the 'regimental bath'? WTF is that all about if not the most extreme abusive gay s&m BS, hmmm?)

But think about it; of course gay people have always been in the military.
For some such a traditionally masculine environment is a perfect means of living a life away from women.
Just like the church.

And.
So.
What?


Also, I read through many brochures and they seem to be no offence but highly PC'ed.


- Is that not ok?

Would you really feel happier with state publications using perjoritive language about people/countries/things?
(Which I imagine might not seem so bad .....

.....until it's you or yours that are the 'targets'.)



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 08:55 AM
link   
I think the Homosexual recruitment is regarded as 'PC' becasue the military is actively seeking homosexuals rather than recruiting generally.



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by UK Wizard
I think the Homosexual recruitment is regarded as 'PC' becasue the military is actively seeking homosexuals rather than recruiting generally.


- Sorry Wizard but I don't believe this for a moment.

Please give some examples of how you think the British military is "actively seeking homosexual" recruits.



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- Sorry Wizard but I don't believe this for a moment.

Please give some examples of how you think the British military is "actively seeking homosexual" recruits.


I may have misunderstood the news story, but the issue is being talked about here



THE Royal Navy has turned to Stonewall, the gay lobby group, for advice on how to recruit and retain homosexual sailors.
Senior officers want to encourage more gay and lesbian sailors, estimated at 2,100, to “come out”, paving the way for the first openly gay admiral.



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by UK Wizard
THE Royal Navy has turned to Stonewall, the gay lobby group, for advice on how to recruit and retain homosexual sailors.
Senior officers want to encourage more gay and lesbian sailors, estimated at 2,100, to “come out”, paving the way for the first openly gay admiral.


- I'll admit that surprised me......

...... but then again making a big publicity splash for a few minutes with a high-profile gay rights group isn't much proof of a sustained campaign on the ground and in the local recruiting offices either.

I stand to be proven wrong but I can't help thinking (given the culture of the UK services) that it'll be a long long time before openly gay personnel are treated just like their hetrosexual counterparts.

Maybe they're just recognising the truth of the situation afterall you are a Churchill fan Wizard you should have heard this one, what was all that about the Royal Navys' only genuine tradition being 'rum, sodomy and the lash' hmmm?


[edit on 6-3-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
I stand to be proven wrong but I can't help thinking (given the culture of the UK services) that it'll be a long long time before openly gay personnel are treated just like their hetrosexual counterparts.


The treatment of homosexuals is a culture issue, I don't much care about the sexuality of those defending my country as long as they defend it.



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by UK Wizard
The treatment of homosexuals is a culture issue, I don't much care about the sexuality of those defending my country as long as they defend it.


- Exactly Wizard.
That was what I was getting at with my comment about gay people in the forces previously. Some very famous and some very humble and unknown. Being gay is hardly the point IMO.



posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 03:47 PM
link   
"Fireman is now called firefighter..."

When referring to jobs fireman, postman, policeman etc. I always just thought of the man bit referring to human, it really irritates me when i hear my sister come home from school and say stuff about "policeperson" or "Postperson". Its just unnecessary.

A recent retarded example of PC: the cutting o funding for lake district walks because only middle class white people used them; and they weren't actively targeting ethnic minorities.
Also, some cub scout group needing a funding grant, and hadn't even bothered going through the application procedure because when they enquired they were told that they were too white and middle class.
There was nothing stopping those ethnic minorities going out ot the countryside, they just chose not to. There seems to be a target quota for the number of persons of ethnic minorities in every organisation/groupactivity these days.


PC being taken to extremes like this plays into the hands of the BNP and such. Just imagine how they could spin this: "Whites stopped from walk because all taxes are spent on foreigners etc."

'Positive discrimination' is a load of rubbish too. The only good discrimination is no discrimination. Much of this positive discrimination and encouraging ethnic minorities is just plain racism dressed up as being old fashioned.
My council held a special awards ceremony for every person from an ethnic minority background who got more than 10 GCSEs. How patronising is that? It puched across the image that all ethnic minorities are thick, so they must have had to try really hard etc. Just plain racism against them, even though they're the ones getting awards.



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by minimi
"Fireman is now called firefighter..."

When referring to jobs fireman, postman, policeman etc. I always just thought of the man bit referring to human, it really irritates me when i hear my sister come home from school and say stuff about "policeperson" or "Postperson". Its just unnecessary.


- OK, so it irritates you. Maybe if you were a female fire-fighter or cop or postie the opposite would be true too, hmmm?

But so what anyway, it's hardly a big deal is it?


A recent retarded example of PC: the cutting o funding for lake district walks because only middle class white people used them; and they weren't actively targeting ethnic minorities.


- This just sounds like a major bit of spin being put on the realities of public spending priorities to me. Sorry.


Also, some cub scout group needing a funding grant, and hadn't even bothered going through the application procedure because when they enquired they were told that they were too white and middle class.


- Ditto.


There was nothing stopping those ethnic minorities going out ot the countryside, they just chose not to. There seems to be a target quota for the number of persons of ethnic minorities in every organisation/groupactivity these days.


- Or alternatively one could simply recognise that seeing as they are taxpayers too it is only right and proper that public spending priorities take account of the needs and behaviour of ethnic and other minority groups, hmmmmmm?

Why should they pay up their taxes like everyone else and always be excluded from consideration when it comes to spending what is also their public money too?

Why should public bodies always fund on the basis of the majority?
It's not like the majority of funds aren't spent that way anyway, is it, hmmmm?


PC being taken to extremes like this plays into the hands of the BNP and such. Just imagine how they could spin this: "Whites stopped from walk because all taxes are spent on foreigners etc."


- Sorry that is just a stupid comment aimed at unthinking morons, IMO,......

......the kind of people who refuse to see minortities as taxpayers too with a right to be considered in the spending of those public funds.

Thankfully most people aren't that blind, selfish or ignorant IMO.


'Positive discrimination' is a load of rubbish too. The only good discrimination is no discrimination. Much of this positive discrimination and encouraging ethnic minorities is just plain racism dressed up as being old fashioned.


- Well that's an interesting view except for the fact that 'positive discrimination' is very rare in the UK for a start and secondly there is also the fact that, taken overall, the disadvantaged these measures are intended to help remain the disadvantaged.

.....and anyway it is not just racial minorities we are talking about with this either.
Women's opportunity and pay remains unequal to mens, for instance.


[edit on 13-3-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 06:12 PM
link   


- Or alternatively one could simply recognise that seeing as they are taxpayers too it is only right and proper that public spending priorities take account of the needs and behaviour of ethnic and other minority groups, hmmmmmm?

Why should they pay up their taxes like everyone else and always be excluded from consideration when it comes to spending what is also their public money too?

Why should public bodies always fund on the basis of the majority?
It's not like the majority of funds aren't spent that way anyway, is it, hmmmm?



Whilst trying to skillfully involve myself in debate over PC with anyone, especially you Smink, I felt the need to reply.

Just because not enough ethnic minorities enjoy a public service (which they have every right to do, being tax payers) why should those who DO choose too get their service cut as a result?

I could argue the same about some ways that money gets spent in my local authority. With whole departments setup to cater for the needs of ethnic minorities, and huge somes of money being spent re-printing information in dozens of languages.

I do not enjoy, nor have the ability to speak Punjab/swahili/insert dialect here, and nor do i see a need. Live here, speak English. Simple. If I went to their home lands, that exact same thing would be expected of me.

However, I do not. I do not complain to my councillor. Partly though not really having the need too, but mainly as it is seen as not-PC to do so.

Well, I am terribly sorry to offend anyone, but last time I checked, this was England, where the English live, and where we speak English. (and the same goes for Wales, Scotland and Ulster)

As you yourself have pointed out on an immigration thread, the actual proportion of immigrants (ie, those of Asian/African origin) is less than 10%, but we seem to more concerned about catering for them and making sure we don't offend them than the 90% of the population that is native to this land.



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
Just because not enough ethnic minorities enjoy a public service (which they have every right to do, being tax payers) why should those who DO choose too get their service cut as a result?


- I suppose the point I am trying to make stu is that first of all the vast bulk of spending is and will always be spent on 'the majority' and secondly that priorities will always change to suit changing circumstances.

Similar arguements can be and have been made once upon a time by the upper classes in relation to preserving their interests/services where they too once claimed that the taxpaying 'lower classes' apparantly chose not to access the things they wanted maintained by public money.

Regardless of the individual merits it remains undeniable that account must be taken of all of the public that pay.

(and I have to say stu, I avoided getting into specifics on this I thought most would instantly recognise that the idea of the example given, of the countryside and the Lake District, being cut off from the public purse is so absurd as to not be worth going into.

The torrent of public money shovelled in that direction from all sources is such that it is just ridiculous to suggest that because one small stream of public money might be closed off it all is to be closed off.)


I could argue the same about some ways that money gets spent in my local authority. With whole departments setup to cater for the needs of ethnic minorities, and huge somes of money being spent re-printing information in dozens of languages.


- We can all choose to identify an extreme and attempt to paint it as the norm but that would be false nevertheless, right?

It remains a fact that whilst there are a few departments or sections of departments catering for the needs of ethnic minorities the bulk of all public spending does not go towards this and that the vast majority of departmental effort is going elsewhere.


As you yourself have pointed out on an immigration thread, the actual proportion of immigrants (ie, those of Asian/African origin) is less than 10%, but we seem to more concerned about catering for them and making sure we don't offend them than the 90% of the population that is native to this land.


- I'm sorry but I just don't think this is a fair and rational reflection on how things are.

I do not deny more could be done, but I don't agree that taking away the little we spend on these areas is the answer and I certainly don't see that spend as particularly disproportionate.

Printing leaflets in a few languages or having an interpreter in a public office is not IMO a big deal.

I know we spend most of our public money on those "native to this land".

(and I do not think this issue relates simply to ethnic minorities either, there are a large number of others that are in a minority that have every right to expect a wealthy country such as ours to treat them as if they too are entitled to a modicum of consideration).



posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- DW the truth is there have always been homosexuals in the military. Some, famously, made outstanding and excellent soldiers.

Did you see the Channel 4 series about gay soldiers, sailors and airmen of WW2 on TV recently?
There was a situation where men depended upon each other for their lives for years on end, in the most confined conditions and the usual 'standard objections' about the proported corrosive and damaging 'effects' supposedly brought about 'permitting' gay people to serve in the armed forces is proven rubbish.

The idea that allowing 'them' in would result in (sexual) abuse is nonsense, for every rare case there are umteen of far worse abuse (including sexual) by supposedly hetrosexuals.
(Ever heard of the 'regimental bath'? WTF is that all about if not the most extreme abusive gay s&m BS, hmmm?)

But think about it; of course gay people have always been in the military.
For some such a traditionally masculine environment is a perfect means of living a life away from women.
Just like the church.

And.
So.
What?

Hmm you got a point there, just saying it doesnt really do the image of the navy any good to people down here ah well cela vie.
I have to agree with wizard on his military qoute which I cant be bothered quoting..



- Is that not ok?

Would you really feel happier with state publications using perjoritive language about people/countries/things?
(Which I imagine might not seem so bad .....

.....until it's you or yours that are the 'targets'.)

No no Its okey but just seemed a bit "odd" to me when I first looked at it.... mabye its this great thing we call media influenceing me...heh thanks for that anyway sminkey...



posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
saying it doesnt really do the image of the navy any good to people down here ah well cela vie.


- I must admit DW I take the view that we have nothing to fear when we face ourselves as we truely are, and that that applies to us in terms of our society too.

We have gay people in our society. So what?

I'd no more tolerate a sexually abusive homosexual than I would a sexually abuse heterosexual. I see no real difference between either only the particulars of the methods used.

(.....and if we are going to be worried about any of this kind of stuff why not pick on the kind most often occurring?
For every one predatory homosexual abusers how many heterosexual ones do you imagine there are, hmmmm?

.....and any guys who think that exaggerated should talk to more women!)

One classic objection was the notions of an inability to trust and the possibility of blackmail etc etc IMO this is especially daft because it's the whole scandalising about a person's homosexuality that creates this possibility.


I have to agree with wizard on his military qoute which I cant be bothered quoting..


- Yeah, he was spot on with that.


mabye its this great thing we call media influenceing me...heh thanks for that anyway sminkey...


- No prob mate; I do always find it a help sometimes to imagine the boot on the other foot & how I'd feel if it were me and mine.

It's a subject that took me a while to get clued up about and comfortable with, gay people were a rarity in my growing up.
Then my best friend's wife's brother got unbelievably sick before everyone's eyes and fairly quickly died of AIDS.....we're going back to the times before the drugs that extend life for HIV positive people came about.

That - to my shame that it took something as aweful as that - altered everything I in my smug hetero world thought about gay people and the lives many live.

[edit on 14-3-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 07:48 AM
link   
I work in a job that over the years has become riddled with what I think of as extreme or 'fluffly bunny' PC, that is it takes no account of real situations or real people but tries to promote an almost immpossible standard for us to live up to. Having said that I still believe that the core beliefs behind so called political correctness are valid and needed, I've got no problem with postperson or firefighter for the simple reason that it's a job open to and employing both sexes. It has gone to an extreme lately and some misinformed legislation tends to switch discrimination rather than deal with it but it's better than what we used to have, that is rampant discrimination practiced openly.



posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 12:36 PM
link   
Good example of political correctness here:

News Link



A 13-year-old girl has been suspended from school because the head teacher disapproves of her hairstyle.

Olivia Acton returned from a holiday with braids, which Middleton Technology School in Rochdale deemed "extreme".

She has been excluded until the braids are removed, but is resisting the school's demands which she regards as being discriminatory.


The reason for this being politically correct is because black pupils are allowed to wear braids. Whats the world coming to



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join