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?

I worked with a lad who was brown skinned. He became very nervous and worried about causing offence when describing his school uniform policy because his shoes had to be black.

Also this whole thing about calling black people "African American", many of whom have never been to Africa or America.

Although on the whole I do agree with you this new found fear of even referring to race is PC gone too far IMO.

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

Most of our children have been on visits to mosques and temples, for example. Visitors to the school to talk about Chinese New Year. Our school had a day learning from a Sri Lankan dance group. It's a primary school. They aren't looking for deep sociological analysis.

The trouble is that people who are opposed to political correctness or say it has gone too far can never actually produce any evidence. And their anecdotes very rarely survive the most cursory investigation- the Winterval thing is a classic example of this. And the Middle Rason school. Both of these were picked up and run with by the "gone mad" brigade, but both ended up being shown to be misunderstandings.

Wasn't the Winterval thing about twenty years ago? I've never heard it mentioned apart from on threads like these.

I would say that Kids' Company was also an example of political correctness gone too far, but it would not survive the criteria of this thread because what went on at Kids' Company was illegal.

Because that really narrows down the meaning of 'too far' to a little bit over the line but not so far that people are breaking the law and an official, evidence collecting investigation is required.

Following the horrendous Trump win, one of the most interesting posts on my FB feed was from a friend wondering whether the unacceptability within today's society of ever saying anything un-PC might have exacerbated the problem. Goodness that was an unwieldy sentence - apologies - stick with me. Let me be clear, this friend is about as PC as it is possible to be, but her point was that it might be healthier to allow people to talk more freely - even if that means saying offensive and ignorant things - if it allows them to let off steam. And to be challenged along the way. Her view was that then - in the course of life and conversations/interactions with normal people those views can be challenged and abated. Whereas if no one is ever allowed to voice things, then they build and build up silently - behind closed doors. And then you get Brexit/Trump as a result as the rest of us were in blissful ignorance. She was just throwing it out there. I don't know what the answer is as clearly one can't condone the expressing of offensive views, but I can see her point about pressure valves and their release.

I would consider there to be more of an issue of people only socialising with people who are very similar to themselves. It is not that people are afraid to express particular opinions, it is simply that they're expressing them to people who already broadly agree with them.

In the US I have found that people believe that political correctness has gone too far for two main reasons. Firstly people do not like change, why is something that has been accepted for the past xx years not offensive. Hence the feeling that the young generation are over sensitive. To give an example, DS's grandfather assumed that DS was gay for the last 5 years due to DS correcting grandfather on certain comments because they were not PC.

Secondly people do not like to be told how to think and feel by the government

"Wasn't the Winterval thing about twenty years ago? I've never heard it mentioned apart from on threads like these."

Yes it was. But somebody on this thread had used it as an example- and it's a well documented case.

notdeadyet -in the US a lot of what would constitute hate crime in the UK is protected under the First Amendment, so it's not a lack of being able to express onesself that has led to the rise of Trump...

First hand interaction with different backgrounds beyond the immediate locality

Wild thought.

How about linking up with a school in a more diverse environment, for example linking country and city schools, for exchange of experiences regarding their daily lives? Even maybe with reciprocal visits?
It would be hugely beneficial for both, and beyond the ethnic issue only.

It can't be that hard.

It doesn't matter that Dave has a moustache and a beard.

Just to be annoying, some women have moustaches and beards. It doesn't make them not women.

It's the gonads that are the issue, really, not facial hair.

It's the gonads that are the issue, really, not facial hair.

I believe Dave has those too and refuses to operate on them. Don't you know that females have pensis now..................

Clearly, what I meant was that the problem wasn't that the man had a beard, but that he had male sex organs...

Years ago I was recruiting IT contractors for a project I was managing.

The role was customer facing and required excellent written and verbal communication skills. Grammatically correct written English and fluent/casual English. With the latter mean the ability to understand accents and colloquialisms.

I had a shed load of CV's sent over to me, I asked the agency to anonymise them. My filtering criteria went as follows:

1. Removal of CV's with spelling mistakes
2. Removal of CV's with incorrect use of where/were and there/they're/their as an example.

Typically this got rid of 50-75% of CV's. My view was that if they could not take care of the basics on a CV they have time to prepare, it did not bode well for day to day communication.

Remember - these were roles for experienced educated IR professionals not roles for entry level/first job positions.

After I recruited the third position, I was hauled before HR as typically my filtering system above got rid of most of the Indian and Nigerian contractors. Despite there being good reasons for doing what I was doing, I was told it was unacceptable.

That was PC gone mad,

I recall another poster on another thread saying something similar about a matching dilemma they had wooly. They were absolutely flayed alive for it on here. Reported to headmaster and all sorts of nasty insults hurled at them.

Loads of things I would have said have already been said.

We live in a climate where people who raise discussion and debate over issues regarding those with protected characteristics are silenced.

Someone mentioned Rotherham. Classic example.

The no platforming of people who are concerned about the impact of Transgender on Children's and Women's Right.

Child abuse in some Black Migrant African communities.

Policy being adopted that has led to children being killed and placed in dangerous homes. Policy made because of Fathers rights movements.

There are grey, complicated and very tricky areas to navigate but if it's not possible to even begin the debate it can't happen.

This is political correctness gone mad. Political correctness agenda is set by predominantly white middle class neo liberals, while a dominant powerful group sets the agenda for what can and can't be discussed (through misguided paternalism - an oppression in itself). Political correctness is and will be Mad.

Using respectful discourse out of informed understanding of the complexity of power is great. Silencing debate in the name of protecting the oppressed is dangerous.

This is how people involved in PIE are able to influence government policy on lowering the age of consent. By Equality and diversity washing. Minorities and oppressed groups are deemed victims by this discourse and it's mad, dangerous and people involved in this movement are afforded ridiculous amounts of protection from being accountable for perpetrating abuse.

Label anyone who speaks up a bigot and the neo-liberals close ranks...... most of them I'll informed paternalists, some dangerous

The very fact that this thread exists is evidence that PC went too far.

If you believe in any ideology so intensely that you think there will never be cases where that ideology will be applied poorly, wrongly, for nefarious purposes, in ways that involve bullying, persecution and illegality then your ideology has gone too far.

"If you believe in any ideology so intensely that you think there will never be cases where that ideology will be applied poorly, wrongly, for nefarious purposes, in ways that involve bullying, persecution and illegality then your ideology has gone too far."

Does anyone think that?
Is political correctness an ideology?
Is it fair to say that an ideology has gon "too far" if is applied poorly, wrongly or for nefarious purposes? Surely the ideology remains perfectly valid even if in some circumstances it is misused? It's a poor lookout for religion if that is not the case!

Generally, I don't think that PC has gone too far. It formalises kindness and politeness, in my opinion. It forces us to consider issues that don't always affect us directly.

However, it's a blunt instrument that is still finding it's level. What we haven't yet done is find a way of discussing complicated topics (e.g. immigration, transactivism) whilst protecting the dignity of those being discussed. Whilst remaining PC, I suppose.

I agree with a pp that when people have concerns that - however reasonably or unreasonably - they feel must be suppressed or remain unspoken, they will express them at the ballot box (Brexit). To the detriment of everyone.

Of course religion has gone too far. It has a very long history of going too far.

I think perhaps the point we're wondering about is the idea that there are a whole load of anti- PC ideologies pushing in the other direction and either they go too far or PC does.

I don't think that is the case. I think PC and its opposing belief systems are all going too far at the same time, leading to what is currently a very adversarial environment with simplistic answers to serious issues.

YANBU

How is political correctness a belief system?

Immigration is a fascinating example. During the Brexit debate there was a narrative that said we weren't allowed to talk about it-while, paradoxically, we seemed to be talking of little else.

I think quite often when people say they aren't allowed to talk about something, what they are really saying is that they aren,t allowed to be racist, sexist, homophobic or disablist about it. So reasoned discussion about immigration in terms of funding and numbers is fine, but "coming over here taking out jobs rhetoric not fine. Interpreted by some as "silencing"

The whole of the OP refers to a set of beliefs on which PC operates.

One of the core questions on immigration is whether or not it reduces the quality or quantity of jobs available for citizens of a country. This was discussed in the run up to Brexit and is neither rhetoric nor silenced.