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?

Also, I don't know who this we is, but I heard a vast number of political topics discussed in relation to Brexit, so certainly did not hear people discussing little else but immigration.

Most of Brexit has nothing to do with topics governed by political correctness at all.

The phrase "political correctness" should be banned and swapped for " treating people with respect"

Cos that's all it is.

And then after we've banned using the phrase that refers to banning things, we could ban people mentioning that we banned the phrase.

Just to be sure there's no discussion at all of what we are and are not allowed to talk about.

But PC ness is seeking to silence people and control their use of language.

RE: immigration, you think people saying they're 'not allowed to speak about it is about them complaining that their primal urges to be racist, sexist etc, is being denied them? That's incredibly cynical.

When you say 'we talk of nothing else'. The way I see it is that the main complaint from most people is about what form any discussion tends to take within the media sphere. That form doesn't reflect what they know to be true, what is happening in their communities, what they are hearing about t, seeing around them, and how we're all effected by it. So funding and numbers is fine is a prime example. We can discuss stat's and blame lack of gov't funding, but wander into the forbidden territory of culture and your concerns over that and you're a some sort of 'ist' or guilty of some 'ism' or another.

Wasn't the same thing said about Anne Cryer and Simon Danzcuk?

Ho hum. I don't suppose this will be over, not until the full figured woman offers her vocal rendering anyway

"But PC ness is seeking to silence people and control their use of language."

Is it? To me it's about good manners, and treating people equally and with courtesy.

But it isn't always implemented that way in practice.

And yes both Cologne and Rotherham are examples of a cover up of abuse of women and girls at least partially motivated by a fear of being branded racist. Or an ignorance of or disregard for women's rights which are trumped by other groups' rights. As is the case with transactivism.

I don't know enough about Cologne to comment. But it seems to me that Rotherham was much more about the judgements being made about the girls involved. So it could be argued that a very un PC dismissal of girls from troubled backgrounds was the problem, rather than an over politically correct judgement of the men. Similar to when the hunt for the serial killer of sex workers is stepped up when he kills a "respectable" woman........

PCness is about controlling people's use of language, as it should be.

My friend works in equality and diversity, and she has to frequently remind people at work that hers is a policing role, and it should be a policing role!

I don't want DD to go into school and have other pupils be able to say whatever they want to her. I don't want to go into a work environment or receive a public service and have people speak to me in whatever way they want.

I've no objection to the policing of speech, but we should be very aware that is what is happening, and be really careful with the extent and nature of that policing.

The problem, to my mind, is that political correctness has now mutated into the bizarre world of microaggressions, safe spaces, trigger warnings, cultural appropriation, no platforming and identity politics.

And a lot of that is an act of power seizure and/or display through an attempt to "shame" or "silence".

Witness the now famous article that blew the lid off what was really going on, written by a liberal arts professor who admitted he was now afraid of his students : www.vox.com/2015/6/3/8706323/college-professor-afraid

"The real problem: a simplistic, unworkable, and ultimately stifling conception of social justice."

Again: this is about the Omar Mahmood incident and is full of examples: nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/01/not-a-very-pc-thing-to-say.html

Then there's the Atlantic article: www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/

Is it happening in Britain? Well, British student unions no-platform people for supposedly "violent" opinions (Greer, Bindel, Smurthwaite as examples). UEA banned sombreros. There was a recent case where a young woman was accused of violating safe space policy because she raised her hand during a meeting: www.independent.co.uk/student/news/edinburgh-university-student-imogen-wilson-accused-of-violating-safe-space-rules-for-raising-hand-a6967191.html

All of this is the modern, mutated form of "political correctness". And yes, it has gone too far. We now have a culture of "thought crime" in many universities. And yes, it is fueling the alt-right.

I am sure Rotherham was in part about the girls being particularly vulnerable due to background. It often is the most vulnerable and marginalised that are victimised by badly applied beliefs.

Usually when things go wrong in a system, there are multiple causes.

I don't want DD to go into school and have other pupils be able to say whatever they want to her. I don't want to go into a work environment or receive a public service and have people speak to me in whatever way they want

But isn't that what free speech is about - you can't threaten but you can say what you want.
People say what they want to police/ AandE staff etc I don't think anything happens to them if they aren't threatening violence.

And judging by the Rotherham parents I saw interviewed they were a concerned and loving family.

There was an undoubted cover up over Rotherham and Rochdale. Channel 4 pulled a TV documentary about street grooming gangs. Yes obviously it was about misogyny and I agree racist perceptions in themselves, but there were other factors.

Official reports have found that there was a culture of "misplaced political correctness". In the report into Rotherham council's failings:

"The issue of race is contentious, with staff and members lacking the confidence to tackle difficult issues for fear of being seen as racist or upsetting community cohesion."

The Guardian's coverage of Cologne was disgraceful.

We should be able to challenge these things. People will not change their views unless they are able to discuss legitimate concerns relatively freely and not have them dismissed or minimised, to silence this is handing the field to the far right if they are the only groups who will address these concerns.

"But isn't that what free speech is about - you can't threaten but you can say what you want."
So do you think people should be able to call other people niggers and pakis and shirt lifters and retards? All in the name of free speech?

MissMargie, no, I don't think people should have complete free speech in schools or the workplace.

It isn't acceptable, for example, for my GP to make sexual remarks to me.

There should however be a lot of conversation about what is permissible, rather than just assuming every decision to clamp down on speech will be the right one and people who say otherwise are racists.

Spot on, Werks.

I've posted before, but maybe not on this forum. I have read a discussion where a person who had had an anti rape activist come and describe their rape to a group to educate people was complaining that they shouldn't have to be submitted to a description of a rape and it being inflicted on them was a comparable violation to actually suffering the rape.

I believe they were genuine, not trolling.

We should be able to challenge these things.
We are.
PC is not a modern phenomena and its not confined to Western culture. its a thing people do. PC started as an ironic name given to that behaviour.
The point is that while people frequently cry 'its pc gone mad' they are rarely able to give a real example that actually happened.

See below for plenty of real examples.

It qualifies as an ironic name because in practice, it's often applied by stupid people in stupid ways or used to further dodgy agendas.

PC Gone mad? Germaine Greer and Julie Bindel being labelled bigots for being politically incorrect.

I may not like what they have to say - I think "joking" about putting people in camps is grotesquely rude humour, at the very least - but they must be permitted to speak regardless of the level of offence they may give.

One of the worst things about the concept of 'political correctness' is that it subverts the concept of inclusive civility and appropriates it as an exclusively left-wing political act. This is particularly pernicious as it ties common courtesy to a particular economic outlook, which is unnecessarily polarising. Another is that to any historian it is a miserably toxic term - after all, the victims of the Cambodian killing fields, North Korean reeducation farms (multigenerational slavery), Soviet Gulags and Nazi political internment camps were there for what is literally described as "political incorrectness".

RE: Rotherham a very un PC dismissal of girls from troubled backgrounds was the problem, rather than an over politically correct judgement of the men.

I give up..

But you are doing exactly what you say the PC brigade to. It is very important to be clear how those girls were seen by professionals . Some were in local authority care. At best the view of girls in care by some professionals will have been a view of utter resignation.

views of the girls shouldn't even come into question

Can you not see that is EXACTLY the point??!!!

Birdsdestiny

I quoted from an official review into Rotherham council. "Misplaced political correctness" was an issue.