Political correctness by Trevor Phillips

[Itisnoteasybeingdifferent]

He made a lot of very sensible observations... And I am not a left wing reomaner.

From the Casey report:

She said some of the inaction and silence was driven by political correctness and a fear of tackling the fact that victims had identified perpetrators as being of Pakistani heritage.

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/society/2016/mar/11/child-abuse-failings-rotherham-council-rise-islamophobia?client=safari

Ms Casey said: “Frontline staff were clearly anxious about being branded racist. “Whether there was an element of self-censorship or otherwise, the impact of this was clear. The council was not dealing with a serious problem right before its eyes. “Certainly, this was not limited to frontline officers. There was also a clear perception among senior officers that the ethnic dimension of CSE in Rotherham was taboo.” She said: “Rotherham’s suppression of these uncomfortable issues and its fear of being branded racist has done a disservice to the Pakistani heritage community as well as the wider community. It has prevented discussion and effective action to tackle the problem.

www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/who-knew-what-about-child-sex-abuse-in-rotherham-damning-new-report-sparks-criminal-probe-1-7088666

Watched this. Agree most of those students, except one, were acting like moral guardians but didn't seem to realise how dictatorial they were being in their black and white view of something being 'safe' or 'unsafe'. Also interesting to note that not one of them was a POC.

Paris Lees had nothing to add to the dialogue, except to throw insults, which is her usual way.

Liked the programme, raised quite a few issues and things that shouldn't be an issue

Did that young woman realise of whom she was speaking?

You do know that young woman is a trans woman? I suspect Paris Lees knows exactly who she is talking about.

You see it on Mn all the time. Posters starting threads desperate for their pat on the back for noticing racism or on SN threads ppsters jumping in to have a go because someone usef the wrong phrase and ignoring the actual issue.
Yet offensive swearing is a ceptible

That was telling on that programme, people ranked being offensive to Jews at like 9 or 10 but Muslims at 1 or 2 on that list they did. They also ranked being offensive to women and people with disabilities low too

**When 'acceptable' terminology changes every five minutes, apparently to catch out people who are not conversant with the latest PC lingo, it has gone too far.

But why would people change terminology just to catch other people out, why??

I stupidly argued this same point on FB recently when I queried somebody who called Theresa May a girl. The idiot replied and said he was sure I called adult women girls, that I just wanted to pull him up on something and display my liberal values. No! Why would anybody pretend that they use 'PC' words if they don't really? Why do people believe that 'PC' (which doesn't exist) has been invented as a way of putting other people down? Why? Why can't people accept that a request to use more polite or accurate language is good in a decent, civilised society ??!!

Oh dear I had a bold fail so my last post was probably confusing.

I would really like to know why people think that querying another person's use of a rude or offensive term is done deliberately to display liberal virtue. Why?

Justanotherposter the term old was being used pejoratively.
Like calling someone a black bastard for instance.

Isn't it traditional for uni students to get a bit idealistic and political? For better or worse I'm sure it's always been that way, so to blame snowflakes and millennials seems unfair to me.
In fact it seems a lot of the issues of youth are not humoured lightly as they have been for hundreds of years, and instead blame is heaped solely on the shoulders of the young for the mistakes made.

If it's a choice between being prejudiced and being PC I'll still choose to be PC, and I'd rather be humble and cautious than offend someone, because for so long so many minority groups have been oppressed and I'm not an expert on their experiences. Why would I want to use words that hurt people when I can simply reframe my sentence? Why would I want to 'banter' about issues that seriously affect others? If I'm told what I say is upsetting, I'd rather apologise and consider why than fight over them about it.

For a long time the world has been ruled by white middle class men, and departure from that is, naturally, grumbled about by those that are benefited by it. And that grumbling, that assertion of the right to power of the white middle class man, is what gives rise to Trump and Farage. Does that mean we should quietly amend our behaviour to appease them? Give them their slurs back? Not in my opinion.

Why can't people accept that a request to use more polite or accurate language is good in a decent, civilised society

This - and sometimes things change as people find their voice. If you know a word or a description upsets someone, why would you continue to use it?

In a sense, offend is the wrong word. Upset / really gets to - is probably a better word.

Using words to describe someone that upsets them when you know that those words do upset them - why would you DELIBERATELY do that?

For better or worse I'm sure it's always been that way, so to blame snowflakes and millennials seems unfair to me

Snowflakes - I am sick to death of that fucking word. It's a put down. A word I've seen used frequently to silence people. If you can't debate with someone, call them a snowflake. A Libtard. A remoaner.

Or a social justice warrior. I've been called all those words - and far far worse - by people on Twitter - including prominent commentators (who are white, straight and male) who can't debate but use insults instead.

Those same commentators who can't debate but choose to insult also have the privilege of a massive platform in mainstream media to call people who are concerned over the rise in people like Trump snowflakes.

The Red Guard youth movement in the Chinese Cultural Revolution springs to mind...

The Red Guard youth movement in the Chinese Cultural Revolution springs to mind

Why?

it was a very interesting programme. The students were awful. I have a daughter at sixth form who actively avoids those she refers to as 'social justice warriors' because she says they're insufferable. They're having a sit in protest next week against the single sex toilets in her college. They wants all toilets to be freely available to both males and females, so that trans people don't feel excluded. My daughter isn't happy about this, but they didn't give a shit about her opinion. They announced that it was invalid. They're always arranging some protest or boycott for the most trivial of trivial issues and to be honest they're just a laughing stock. According to her, they're very similar to the students from last night. Entitled millennials telling Mexican people to be offended by sombreros in Mexican restaurants! Fuck off!

But they're sixth formers.
They're just learning that others have different/less advantageous experienced and they're trying to make life easier for them, albeit in a clumsy way.
Isn't that better than closing their eyes to the misfortune of others?

Hmm, I think that while I broadly agree with you that the intention of 'politically correct' language is generally very good, there absolutely are people who use correcting of other people's language as a kind of willy waving and means of exerting power. (I would hazard a guess that the bloke CDALady refers to has done it himself and he was judging her by her own standards there.) Groups of people have always used language to define in and out crowds and I think there is probably a big element of that in the enthusiasm with which students tend to embrace language policing. Language operates at social levels other than the obvious one and I think we need to admit that to really get to grips with the issues raised.

They might be a laughing stock but this PITA minority are the ones running for student office and drafting the rules and making sure they vote.

Guess this is how our politicians start out. The only ones that are interested or arsed are the ones that get the power - whether they should have it or not. I've always wondered why anyone would want to lead a party, lead a country - what kind if mentality and personality puts themselves up for that?

This is interesting to see how far students are prepared to abandon logic to identity politics.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=xfO1veFs6Ho

It was really interesting.

Paris Lees was pretty awful. Really showed herself up with the 'old bigot' comment (ageist) and by the use of the word moron (arguably disablist). I'm not one for censorship but when Paris herself is so vocal to jump on people for the 'wrong' use of language she really needs to be more careful.

And most of the students were ridiculous. It was the earnest young woman who just couldn't get over how offensive cross-dressing 'for fun' was that got me. So desperate to take offence. Though saying that most of the student union committee when I was at uni nearly 15 years ago were like that as well (it's just the causes that were different).

I loved this programme.

Hmm, I think that while I broadly agree with you that the intention of 'politically correct' language is generally very good, there absolutely are people who use correcting of other people's language as a kind of willy waving and means of exerting power.

Absolutely. And that is what you are seeing with those students, IMO. They weren't "humble and cautious" as a pp put it. They were obnoxious, and entitled. There was an awful oneupmanship in "my uni's better than your uni".

And Trevor Phillips made some very pertinent observations when he said that to make real progress people need to learn to live with offence and that they shouldn't confuse symbols with substance.

I would really like to know why people think that querying another person's use of a rude or offensive term is done deliberately to display liberal virtue. Why?

Because frequently I perceive that it is. What's not to understand?

it's virtue signalling bollocks most of the time, that's why