AIBU to think Political Correctness never actually went too far?

[Lessthanaballpark]

AIBU to think that as soon as Political correctness actually started to gain any traction there was a backlash against it that dampened its effect from the outset?

That as soon as the idea that people should check themselves before expressing any racist, sexist or disablist opinion an equally powerful feeling of resentment emerged to counter it and frame those do-gooders as hysterical feminazi killjoys (if female)/manginas(if male)?

That from the moment that women's rights started to have any effect on society, cries of "pussification" and "political correctness gone too far" erupted before anything actually had a chance to "go too far"? That from the privileged viewpoint of someone who is used to seeing themselves reflected in the media, sport and politics, any step towards including other groups feels like a step too far.

That it is far far far more common to hear people saying "well I know this is politically incorrect but I'm going to say it anyway" than it is for people to actually chide others for being politically incorrect.

And that this nostalgia for a time before political correctness existed incorrectly assumes that we have already reached racial/sexual equality and have gone beyond it when really we are only half way there?

Don't agree went to look at schools for sept for dd 3.5 and one school who shall not be named has taken to calling christams winterval 😳 Was not impressed

'one school who shall not be named has taken to calling christams winterval "

Why won't you name it?

I was recently having a conversation on another website with someone in the US about the outcome of the election. She grew up in a very poor part of the country that predominantly voted for Trump. She brought up the point that if you live in poverty and are a minority, there are scholarships and specific programs designed to help these communities. If you live in an impoverished area that is predominantly white, there isn't much assistance. This population tends to get forgotten and it breeds resentment. In the US at least, the attitude towards poor white straight males tends to be that you must be lazy and/or stupid if you are that destitute, since your race/gender/sexuality alone gives you more privilege than any other group.

She was so nervous to even bring this up for fear of being flamed. I think this is an example of what OP was asking. If we can't openly talk about the fact that there is severe poverty in populations other than just minorities, and that they are equally deserving of assistance, than how can we ever do anything to fix it?

You need to tell your friend the thing that helps is called whole privallage that's what helps her that's why she is likey likey to be stopped , amd killed by the police why she is less likey to be jailed if she commits a crime and

That's what's working for her

The safety pin thing happened in this country after the Brexit vote, in the wake of the increase in hate crime. It was just supposed to be like the "I'll ride with you" thing in Australia. It wasn't about victims and perpetrators; it was just about solidarity.

TBH, I thought it was cheesy, and I still do. I never wore one, but I didn't judge anyone else for doing so.

In the last few days, Americans have decided that they need it too. A lot of the reporting I have seen about it appears to have missed the point and made it look even cheesier.

Did I read correctly? Is someone saying the term 'Black Guy' makes them uncomfortable?

Please can you name the "winterval" school?

I wouldn't hold my breath my breath for that name if I were you.

This whole Winterval myth goes back to the late 90s. Birmingham City council was accused of 'banning Christmas' and trying to rebrand it 'Winterval'. Even the Daily Mail admitted it was a load of old bollocks

www.theweek.co.uk/media/42231/myth-winterval-shattered-daily-mail-admits-error

I'm keeping an open mind. It's possible the school may not have heard the story, and thought it was a good idea.

Right, just come back to the thread after work, to see a rather passive aggressive unpleasant comment about the fact that I had to leave it, (suggesting I left the thread after making an unacceptable comment).

Don't we all dip in and out depending on work, family, social commitments? I went back to work. Simple.

There is also a misquote which effectively accuses me of something I neither said not implied.

I raised two issues: 1)who decides what is offensive, (other than the law)? and 2) how do we decide what is a proportionate response? Both points relevant to the OP.

I have been accused of making a racist statement - which I did not and never have, EVER. Just to make that clear.

I neither said nor implied. Typo sorry

I still think the example I mentioned about the Lincolnshire school was relevant. It all depends on how you interpret what Ofsted meant when they said the school should introduce first hand interaction with other ethnic pupils. This would mean, in my opinion, that they are suggesting trying to encourage more diversity by boosting the school's intake of other cultures. How that could come about, I've no idea. Maybe if you live in the city you could visit other local schools with a more diverse mix, but what about schools in rural places, where this wouldn't be practical or doable? To me the report cleverly stops short of stating that the school should entice non white/non English pupils, but if you read between the lines, it would seem that's the suggestion? How would others on this thread suggest how the above could achieved?

it's never reasonable people who complain about "political correctness".

How do you define reasonablle

PC gone too far? Dave, in the photo feels like a woman so must use female facilities and spaces. Woman cannot question Dave'so presence in their spaces as this would be seen to be transphobe.

It doesn't matter that Dave has a moustache and a beard. Dave is obviously a woman and we're just doing the female thing wrong.

Reasonable people show a bit of empathy for others who really cannot help their situations, as a bare minimum, gingham

reasonable people don't put the term politicial correctness into any sentence referring to race, poverty, disability unless they're asserting that acknowledging those facts of some people's daily lies is about something far more human and nuanced that being merely "politically correct."

daily lives

And the problem with your story about "Dave" Amalfi is that the term "politically correct" is also used to show outrage at the noisy people with learning disabilities being allowed on the bus or to "take time off" your DC's teacher and hog a teaching assistant all to themselves (never mind that the funding for that TA is there purely because of said child).

PickAChew

I think the point may have flew over your head. A child with SEN has the right to a teaching assistant and all the support and help that they can possibly get. A man with a penis has no right in women's spaces. And I'm not taking about the bathroom here I'm talking about rape crisis centers, women's shelters, places like the Pankhurst Centre

It hasn't, Amalfi - there are people who do spout about "those people" meaning those with LDs and who do consider that ther right t an education is, as far as their own child is concerned, a detriment to any sort of perfect education at all. There are people who do think that the idea of been obligated to educate a child who struggles to learn anything is an example of "PC gorn mad" These same people may also be the ones who think that giving a position, on pure merit, to someone whose grandparents came to this country 40 years ago is an example of positive discriminaion in an age when PC has gorn mad.

Unfortunately, these people might put Dave, and even any solutions which might attempt to meet some of Dave's stated need while not deliberately denying other people theirs (eg a completely private, unlabelled cubicle), in the same category.

I'm sure we could all think of examples of PC ness being ridiculous. But whether they're 'going too far' or not, is up for debate. What does that mean anyway?

Here's one I really liked from a few months ago

heatst.com/culture-wars/australian-students-told-that-take-the-stairs-signs-are-ableist-and-fat-shaming/?mod=sm_tw_post

"I still think the example I mentioned about the Lincolnshire school was relevant. It all depends on how you interpret what Ofsted meant when they said the school should introduce first hand interaction with other ethnic pupils. This would mean, in my opinion, that they are suggesting trying to encourage more diversity by boosting the school's intake of other cultures"

But it didn't actually say that. It said "First hand experience of the diverse make up of Britain today" "and " First hand interaction with different backgrounds beyond the immediate locality" (or words to that effect) Besring in mind that this is a primary school, both of those things could easily be accomplished with some school trips and some visitors!

First hand experience of the diverse make up of Britain today
First hand interaction with different backgrounds beyond the immediate locality

Obviously the solution is bussing!

But how would you arrange this without trailing the DCs through say Brixton so they can see how others live, a bit like a zoo!! (presuming the school is in a white only area) Do the schools in Brixton have to trail their pupils through middle class suburbs, I wonder.

Yes, kids from relatively monocultural primary schools do school exchanges.

So we're looking for evidence of PC that isn't:

a. Based on personal experience (the ballet teacher).
b. Illegal (the job interview).
c. Carried out by people who are stupid or ignorant (school examples).
d. Caused by more than one factor (Rotherham).
e. Based on factors other than fear of enforcement (School nativity).
f. Motivated by political activists (genderism)

I think you'll struggle to find an example then.