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?

Yes I am not denying that issue but to not understand also how those girls were seen is a mistake.

But that's a diversion from the subject of this thread.

So when the argument can't be made that somehow an example given shouldn't be classed as "PC", and it's not possible to hint that the poster is lying, then the fallback is that we must discuss something different from the question posed in the thread.

Political correctness has been a boon to society in many ways but threads like this make me understand better how Farage and Trump have been able to make their recent in-roads.

It's not a diversion, its saying Rotherham was complex and lots of factors affected the decision making.

I do understand that. But you and others are trying to minimise how harmful unthinking political correctness can be in the wrong hands.

That can be said about any exteme behaviour in the hands of any extremist. Come up with some actual examples or accept it never has been allowed to go too far.
Stop citing harm where there hasnt been any.

Here's my tuppence worth, I may have got completely the wrong end of the stick but never mind.

To me, political correctness is all about the language used and does nothing to alter people's attitudes. In fact, it may do more harm than good because people are so caught up in trying not to cause offence (because they've been told that such-and-such a phrase is offensive) that they might not talk about the issue at all. Or they see the other person as being awkward and easily offended, when in reality the other person had no issue with nice sentiments being poorly expressed.

Here's a few examples, not sure how true some of them are but the fact that the myth is around causes the sort of damage I am talking about.

Police having to call anyone with a different skin colour as being 'from a visible ethnic minority'- so not differentiating between Asian and black.

Ignoring people's self identities, insisting I am a person with autism when I prefer autistic person, or someone with achondroplasia 'vertically challenged' when they might prefer 'dwarf'

And 'pc' language can be used to intentionally hurt. E.g. Talking about a child with special needs. (I'm sure all parents of a child with SEN know the tone of voice I'm talking about!)

Tl;dr attitudes need changing, not just the language used

JelliBelli, why are the examples on this thread not acceptable examples?

Why is Rotherham not an acceptable example, or Kids' Company, or the various trans cases referred to?

Don't you think harm has been caused there?

Why are you desperate to minimise the harm, Jellybelli?

As almond says, plenty of real examples have been given.

'desperate' indeed.
The Rotherham girls were ignored because they were bad girls in care. It was as much misogyny as anything.
Was Jimmy Saville ignored because of PC attitudes?

The Rotherham girls were ignored for multiple reasons, as the official reports pointed out!

Yes, I think Saville was in part down to political correctness. Because he was a character supporting a variety of liberal causes and was seen as the right sort of person at the time, people hushed it up or ignored it. He was part of liberal instutions.

That's why the same things will keep happening. Liberals wills not scrutinise behaviour of liberals too closely or those they champion, and Conservatives will do likewise. It's essentially tribalism and we never seem to learn to stop doing it.

What liberal causes did Savile support? He was a rampant supporter of Thatcher and did charity work so he could access vulnerable people. The way he got away with everything was nothing to do with PC but much to do with the ridiculous cult of celebrity and the way we salivate over people who do 'charitable' works

Of course he did it to get access to vulnerable people. That's the whole point!

I would consider PHAB to be a liberal cause, as it was about rights of people with physical disabilities. He also worked for the BBC, which most people would consider a liberal institution.

And the same is true now about how PC combines with cult of celebrity figureheads. Look at Kids' Company,

The same will be true within religions and within Conservative belief systems.

Don't lecture me on misogyny thanks. Your willingness to brush the harm that political correctness sometimes does under the carpet is the issue here.

People on this thread seem to accept some of the causes of Rotherham but not the more unpalatable ones.

I don't think finding things like racism, sexism and hatred 'politically correct'. I just think it's 'correct'.

Of course it is. But it's not always that simple, is it?

I don't even understand that statement. Racism and sexism are massively political.

The trans issue is a non issue for me. If a male identifies as a female and wants to use woman's loos, be on a woman's ward then why not? Why should it matter? They just use the loo, or (in the case of the ward) recover and then go home.

It may be a non issue for you, but I'm sure you realise your views are not universal.

Yes venus I do realise that.

Excellent.

Gosh I don't think Saville was protected by political correctness. He was around abusing before it had become a "thing".

If anything JS would have been the opposite of PCness, the "I say it like it is " kind of person. The way he treated women even publicly was as far from PC as you could get. He knew he could get away with it because he knew no one really cared about women's rights.

And it seems to be the case today that PCness, which used to serve women, is now being used against them: e.g. No platforming of so called TERF feminists as well as the Rotterdam, Munich, cologne coverup which both used PCness to elevate other concerns: trans and immigration above those of women.

I think we may have a different definition of being politically correct which is probably going to make things difficult! I don't associate giving to charities being 'politically correct' . In that case everything is being politically correct. Is putting some money in a charity box being politically correct.

Birds I agree and I think that's part of the problem. Political Correctness has become, in the minds of many, conflated with so many other things: caring about social justice, rebalancing the historical effects of privilege, advancing multiculturalism and women's equality.

And so when one complains about PC gone too far it is often those things that people feel have gone too far. And the insistence of framing PC as an authoritarian Stalinist form of thought control is simply a diversion from that.